Employment Rights Bill

Public Bill Committee, 14 January 2025.

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

Will everyone please ensure that all their electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We will now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The grouping and selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. I remind hon. Members about the rules on declarations of interest, as set out in the code of conduct.

Schedule 6 - Consequential amendments relating to Part 5

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

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

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

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

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

Steve Darling (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

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

Ashley Fox (Conservative, Bridgwater)

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

The amendment will ensure that the provisions of section 12(2) of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 remain effective even in the context of the changes proposed in the Bill. Section 12(2) will make it a criminal offence for an individual to be in possession or control of a relevant document that is false, is forged or has been improperly obtained with the intention of deceiving others into believing that the individual holds a valid licence under the Act. It is essential that that provision continues to apply to documents issued by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority before its abolition, ensuring that any fraudulent documents issued before the GLAA is dissolved can still result in prosecution. Maintaining that provision is crucial to preventing exploitation and ensuring that individuals and businesses cannot evade accountability with fraudulent documentation.

Clause 109 proposes to abolish the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, which plays a significant role in tackling issues such as labour exploitation, human trafficking and forced labour in certain sectors. The dissolution of the GLAA marks a significant shift in how those matters will be managed. Given the importance of its work, the transition raises important questions about how those responsibilities will be carried forward under the new structures set out by the Bill. The GLAA has played a vital role in regulating the labour market in high-risk industries, so the Government’s proposal to abolish it must be accompanied by a clear plan to ensure continuity of its crucial work.

The GLAA is a non-departmental public body that has been responsible for investigating and addressing serious forms of worker exploitation such as human trafficking, forced labour and illegal labour practices. Additionally, it monitors compliance with regulations under the National Minimum Wage Act and the Employment Agencies Act. By issuing licences to employment agencies, labour providers and gangmasters in high-risk sectors, including agriculture, horticulture, shellfish gathering and associated processing and packaging, the GLAA has been instrumental in safeguarding vulnerable workers and preventing exploitation.

Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

For the four years before I was elected to this place, I worked in Scotland on combating human trafficking and labour exploitation, and I did a lot of work with the GLAA. Quite properly, the hon. Gentleman lists the industries with which it was associated, such as shellfish, agriculture and horticulture. Although the GLAA was set up to address those things, in Scotland we had only one member of staff inspecting all that coastline and all that land, and the authority was not really equipped or able to do the job that it was set up to do.

Having reflected on how the GLAA has operated and on its lack of power and capacity—that is absolutely not a comment on the ability of the staff, who are severely overworked—and given the scale of the crisis, I would argue that it is appropriate to look at how effective the GLAA is and then bolster that by putting it into a fair work agency, rather than having a very small group of people unable to deal with the task that they face. Things like labour exploitation and human trafficking have not gone down as a result of the GLAA, which tells us that we do need to revisit and restructure the organisation.

Ashley Fox (Conservative, Bridgwater)

The hon. Member makes a number of valuable points. The proposed removal of the GLAA raises concerns about how its important functions will be handled. It is imperative that a robust alternative structure be put in place to address those critical issues and to continue protecting workers’ rights and preventing exploitation.

The GLAA’s work is crucial in specific sectors in which workers are at a heightened risk of exploitation. They include agriculture, horticulture, shellfish gathering and the associated processing and packaging industries. Such sectors often rely on seasonal or temporary labour, which makes workers more vulnerable to abuse. The GLAA has been tasked with ensuring that employment agencies and gangmasters in those areas are properly licensed and comply with legal and ethical standards. Without a continued effective regulatory body, there is a risk that workers in those sectors could face greater vulnerability to exploitation. The amendment ensures that even after the GLAA is abolished, protections relating to fraudulent licences remain in place to help to prevent future abuses in those critical sectors.

Although the amendment will rightly ensure that the offence of providing false licences will continue, including for cases identified prior to the passage of the Bill, there remains a need for reassurance about the future of the GLAA’s core responsibilities. The work of the GLAA in investigating and responding to incidents of worker exploitation is vital. As the Bill progresses, it is crucial that there is a clear and publicly communicated plan for transferring and maintaining those functions under the new framework. The question remains of how those critical duties will be continued effectively under the new system. What mechanisms are in place to ensure that the same level of oversight and enforcement will be maintained without compromising workers’ protections?

One significant issue that arises from the abolition of the GLAA is the future of its staff. The Bill stipulates that staff, property, rights and liabilities will be transferred to the Secretary of State. However, there is a need for further clarity on the fate of staff members, who have been dedicated to the GLAA’s mission. Will there be redundancies, or will staff members be reassigned to continue their work under a new authority such as the fair work agency? In the latter case, it will be essential to understand how that transition will be managed. Will those staff members continue to do the same work, or will there be changes to their roles? Furthermore, will the reorganisation cause any disruption to the ongoing work of tackling labour exploitation and illegal labour practices? Minimising disruption in that process is crucial to ensure that there is no gap in the important regulatory and enforcement work carried out by the GLAA.

Government amendment 183 appears to be designed to ensure that existing legislation, particularly in relation to worker protections and the regulation of labour providers, continues to apply once the Bill passes. It would have been reassuring to have confirmation that the intention behind the amendment is to maintain the existing legal framework and obligations. The continuity of those provisions is critical to ensuring that workers remain protected and that the work of tackling exploitation and human trafficking continues without interruption. I would be grateful for the Minister’s confirmation that the amendment will ensure that the key elements of existing legislation remain in force.

Finally, if the Bill introduces any new powers, it is important that the need for those powers be fully explained and understood. The amendment and the Bill more broadly implement changes that could have significant implications both for employers and for their employees. It would be helpful to have clarification on whether the new powers will be used to expand the role of the Secretary of State or the fair work agency in monitoring and regulating sectors previously overseen by the GLAA. How will those new powers affect existing regulations? What safeguards will be in place to ensure that they are used appropriately and effectively?

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

That was quite a lengthy debate for a technical amendment. This amendment to schedule 6 will ensure continuity of function, which was one of the main points that the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Bridgwater made. We are alive to their concern that there is a hole through which provisions can fall: there are a number of amendments to make sure that there is continuity of legal force and in the ability to carry out the functions of the predecessor authorities.

Both hon. Members asked about redundancies. It is premature to talk about operational matters of that nature. The impact assessment is being carried out on the basis of the existing budgets of the relevant agencies. No reduction in staff members is anticipated, but as we move forward, efficiencies and duplications may become apparent when the agencies are merged, which may lead to other changes to the way in which matters are carried out, and those will clearly be dealt with.

There was a concern that the reorganisation could lead to disruption, which is certainly not our intention. We expect the agencies to be able to continue to carry out existing investigations—indeed, many of the amendments are being made with that in mind to ensure that continuity is preserved. I remind Opposition Members that the purpose of the fair work agency is to ensure that intelligence is shared and resources are pooled so that we can be more effective in our labour market abuse enforcement mechanisms. That has been widely supported across the entire group of stakeholders.

In terms of oversight, there will be an advisory board, reports and strategies and the Secretary of State will be answerable to Parliament for the work of the fair work agency. We will no doubt return to that on a number of occasions as the detail is fleshed out. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I beg to move amendment 104, in schedule 6, page 140, line 26, leave out “and (4)” and insert “, (4), (8) and (9)”.

This amendment, and amendments 105 and 106, make further minor amendments of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as a result of the replacement of labour abuse prevention officers by enforcement officers under Part 5 of the Bill.

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 105 and 106.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

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

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

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

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

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

My point is that events happen. Although the Minister is optimistic, with his natural sunny disposition, about the lack of disruption that the reorganisation will bring, I gently ask him to consider whether the tyres have been properly kicked in the planning steps and whether the necessary due process has been followed to ensure that any disruption through the reorganisation is genuinely minimised. Although no one can expect the unexpected, I ask that steps be taken should something derail timescales or get in the way of the reorganisation.

Ashley Fox (Conservative, Bridgwater)

Amendments 104 to 106 propose minor but necessary changes to section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, arising from the changes introduced under part 5 of the Bill, particularly the replacement of labour abuse prevention officers by enforcement officers. The intention behind the change is to streamline and update the regulatory framework in response to the restructuring of enforcement roles. By introducing enforcement officers under the new structure, the Government aim to enhance the effectiveness of labour abuse prevention while ensuring that there is no gap in oversight and enforcement. These minor amendments are crucial to align existing legislation with the nearly structured responsibilities and authority of enforcement officers, who will now take on the duties previously held by labour abuse prevention officers.

The centralisation of enforcement agencies under the fair work agency is part of a broader effort to centralise and co-ordinate the various enforcement agencies that currently operate. By bringing the enforcement bodies together under a single umbrella, the Government aim to create a more co-ordinated, efficient and consistent approach to tackling labour abuses and ensuring that workers’ rights are upheld across different sectors. The centralisation process is designed to improve the effectiveness of enforcement and simplify the regulatory landscape for both businesses and workers, but as we move through the reorganisation period, it is essential that all enforcement activities continue to be carried out seamlessly, without any disruption or decrease in the standard of oversight. That is particularly important as the new system is put in place, as workers rely on enforcement mechanisms to protect their rights.

I seek reassurance on the continuity of enforcement standards during the reorganisation. Given the significant structural changes involved, I ask the Minister to assure me that all current enforcement work will continue to be carried out to the same high standard during the transition period. The centralisation of enforcement agencies is a significant undertaking, and it is vital that the effectiveness of enforcement operations is not compromised during the restructuring process. Workers and businesses must be confident that the protections afforded by the existing enforcement framework will remain intact, and that enforcement officers will have the tools, resources and authority that they need to address breaches of the law effectively. I would appreciate clarification on how the Government plan to ensure that no enforcement gaps occur during the reorganisation, and that current and future enforcement work will be conducted at the same high level of competence.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

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

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

All of Buckinghamshire.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

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

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I beg to move amendment 184, in schedule 6, page 141, line 7, at end insert—

“Employment Tribunals Act 1996

70A In section 19A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (conciliation: recovery of sums payable under settlements), omit subsection (10A).”

This amendment provides for a minor consequential amendment relating to Part 5 of the Bill.

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 188.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

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

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

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

“recovery of sums payable under settlements”

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

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

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

(b) that declaration is made.”

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

Ashley Fox (Conservative, Bridgwater)

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

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

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

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

Hopefully, I can put Opposition Members’ minds at rest about the need for the amendment. It is about simplifying the legislative framework. Section 19A(10A) of the 1996 Act is about disclosure of settlement terms to enforcement officers who are appointed under section 37M of that Act. As that is now being repealed by and superseded by the provisions in this Bill, particularly clauses 98 and 99, that provision is no longer required in the 1996 Act. That is why it is being removed; the current arrangements remain in place, but they will all be in one place, in this Bill. We hope that will provide clarity and certainty for those who wish to avail themselves of the rights and obligations under this legislation.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I beg to move amendment 185, in schedule 6, page 141, line 33, leave out from “2025)” to end of line 2 on page 142 and insert

“acting in the exercise of functions conferred on them by virtue of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984;”;”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 186.

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 187 and 186.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

The amendments make essential adjustments to the Employment Rights Bill ensuring that there is a process for appropriate oversight of police powers used by officers within the fair work agency. There will be a subsection of enforcement officers within the fair work agency who will be able to use police powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. It is important that there is appropriate oversight of officers using these powers as part of their investigations.

This is not a new power. Currently, Labour abuse prevention officers within the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority are able to use these Police and Criminal Evidence Act powers. Any complaints or allegations of misconduct are investigated by the Independent Office for Police Conduct, thereby ensuring that enforcement officers use their powers responsibly and within legal boundaries. The amendments ensure that the existing oversight arrangements with the IOPC can continue with the fair work agency on abolition of the GLAA. On that note, I hope the Committee will accept amendments 185, 186 and 187.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

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

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

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

Ashley Fox (Conservative, Bridgwater)

Amendments 186 and 187 propose important changes that would grant the Secretary of State the power to make regulations enabling the director general of the Independent Office for Police Conduct to handle complaints and misconduct related to enforcement officers who exercise police powers. This would involve granting the IOPC the authority to oversee complaints regarding enforcement officers as they carry out their duties, particularly when acting within the scope of the powers given to them under section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Amendment 185 is consequential to those changes, ensuring that the necessary legislative framework aligns with the proposed regulations. Specifically, amendment 186 outlines that the Secretary of State will have the authority to make regulations that will confer specific functions on the director general of the IOPC. Those functions would relate to enforcement officers when they exercise powers granted to them through section 114B of the 1984 Act, which provides enforcement officers with certain powers, and this amendment ensures that there are appropriate mechanisms in place to address any complaints or allegations of misconduct arising from their use of these powers.

I would be grateful if the Minister provided further clarification on the scope of these regulations. Specifically, it would be helpful to understand what types of function the Secretary of State is likely to impose on the director general of the IOPC. For instance, will the regulations specify procedures for investigating complaints, the methods of oversight, or protocols for handling disciplinary actions against enforcement officers? What types of misconduct or complaint are anticipated to fall within this framework? Moreover, how do the Government envisage the IOPC’s role evolving, with the additional responsibility for overseeing enforcement officers under these amendments?

Understanding the intended use of these powers will help stakeholders anticipate the practical effects of these changes and their potential impacts on enforcement officers’ accountability. A key concern is whether the IOPC will be granted greater powers under this proposed framework. The IOPC’s current remit covers complaints and misconduct relating to police officers, but the introduction of enforcement officers who possess police powers raises important questions about whether the IOPC will have the authority to investigate misconduct claims against those officers in a similarly robust manner. Will the IOPC be granted expanded investigatory powers to ensure that complaints involving enforcement officers are handled thoroughly and impartially?

Additionally, will the IOPC have the authority to impose sanctions on enforcement officers found to have committed misconduct? If sanctions are available, it would be useful to understand what types of action the IOPC could take, such as recommending disciplinary measures, issuing fines or referring cases for criminal prosecution.

Providing clarity on the scope of the IOPC’s powers in relation to enforcement officers will be crucial for ensuring that those officers remain accountable for their actions while exercising their police powers.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I am grateful to Opposition Members for raising those questions. I can reassure them that this is not about creating new powers, either for enforcement officers or for the IOPC. It is about transferring the existing responsibility that the IOPC has for designated officers with police-style powers to the fair work agency. The discussions have been on the basis that there would not be any additional resource implications for the IOPC. Obviously, if that were to change in due course, when the fair work agency is under way, there would be discussions about that. It is simply about the existing powers under section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act being applicable to the enforcement officers of the fair work agency on exactly the same basis as they are now. I hope that that has put Opposition Members’ minds at rest. On that note, I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

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

“Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

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

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

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

Nick Timothy (Conservative, West Suffolk)

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

I say this because these powers can be very controversial. I am thinking of the Liberal Democrats, who are sitting alongside us today, because I remember the controversies within the coalition Government at the time when we were considering these kinds of powers. It can be difficult to strike the balance between the need for law enforcement in the age of sophisticated and complex communication and the need for privacy and safeguards to ensure that access to that kind of information is never abused.

It is vital to remember that communications data of the kind I am describing is not the same as interception, which has a completely different legal framework and oversight regime, and quite rightly so. I do not think anybody here wants to stray into that. Communications data is very different, since it relates to the what, when and where of a communication.

I would like to ask the Minister about access to communications data for these purposes. I understand that this amendment is slightly different, as it relates to information that is voluntarily provided when the person under investigation agrees to hand over an electronic device to the authorised investigator. What access to communications data will enforcement officers have under the law for the purposes of upholding employment rights? How will the voluntary provision of a device, as envisaged in this amendment, work? Will there be backstop powers for enforcement officers in the event that the person investigated refuses to hand over their device?

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 says that the power may only be exercised if it is for the purposes of

“preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting crime”.

What, for the purposes of this Bill does “preventing” mean? Are there definitions or thresholds for triggering the power? If not, why not? That seems to be a reasonable proposition. Will it be triggered simply by the judgment of an enforcement officer? If so, what safeguards will there be? What training will be introduced to make sure that the power will not be abused? What oversight will there be, and what sanctions will apply if the power is indeed misused? We hope it will not be, but we know from experience that powers sometimes can be.

The 2022 Act also says that the power can be used only when the authorised person “reasonably believes” that information on the device is relevant to the purpose of, in this case, enforcement of employment law and is “necessary and proportionate”. Again, what safeguards will there be? What training will be made available? What oversight will there be? In sum, what protections will there be from the abuse of these kinds of necessarily intrusive powers?

The 2022 Act further says that the authorised person

“must, to be satisfied that the exercise of the power…is proportionate”

ascertain that there are

“no other means of obtaining the information”

sought by the enforcement officer that avoid the risk of disproportionality, or there are other such means but it is not reasonably practicable to use them. Can the Minister tell us what the definitions are of the terms set out in these tests for the purpose of the Bill—“proportionality”, “reasonably practicable” and so on?

The enforcement officer, under the terms of the 2022 Act, must also be satisfied in advance of accessing a device that, to assess proportionality, he or she has considered

“the amount of confidential information likely to be stored on the device”.

I find that a little confusing, so I would appreciate it if the Minister explained how an enforcement officer is expected to know the amount of confidential information stored on the device in advance of accessing said device.

I understand that there is also a code of practice, written to help officers currently entitled to use the powers under the 2022 Act to assess their ability to do so in accordance with the law. What plans does the Minister have to update that code in light of Government amendment 190, to ensure that it reflects the application of those powers in the Bill?

Ashley Fox (Conservative, Bridgwater)

The amendment would grant enforcement officers, under part 5 of the Bill, the authority to exercise the powers outlined in section 37 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Specifically, it would enable those officers to extract information from electronic devices in certain circumstances. Of course, everyone now carries one of those electronic devices.

The amendment is designed to support enforcement officers in carrying out their duties, including the investigation and enforcement of employment laws, particularly in cases that may involve criminal activities, such as exploitation, trafficking or financial misconduct. The ability to access electronic devices and retrieve relevant data will aid in gathering evidence and conducting thorough investigations, especially when digital evidence is critical to uncovering illegal practices.

To clarify the scope of that power, section 37 of the 2022 Act limits the use of the power to specific purposes. The powers can be exercised for the following objectives: preventing crime, which could include investigating cases of worker exploitation, trafficking or other forms of criminal behaviour related to employment law; detecting criminal activity, such as fraudulent schemes or illegal practices by employers; investigating crimes, especially where there is a digital trail or evidence related to labour abuse, fraud or similar issues that could be crucial to the case; prosecuting crime and ensuring that the evidence gathered can be used in legal proceedings to hold perpetrators accountable; locating missing persons, which could be relevant in situations involving forced labour or human trafficking; and protecting vulnerable individuals, such as children or at-risk adults, from harm, including neglect or physical, mental or emotional abuse in the workplace.

Those strict conditions are in place to ensure that the powers are used appropriately and only when there is a legitimate and necessary reason to extract information from electronic devices. While that power can be extremely valuable in investigating serious crimes, it is important to consider how often such powers will be needed when enforcing employment law specifically. The nature of employment law enforcement does not always require the same level of investigation into criminal activities as, for example, police work or national security investigations. Thus, I would appreciate an insight from the Minister regarding the frequency with which the power is likely to be used in the enforcement of employment laws. Is the power expected to be a routine tool, or will it be reserved for exceptional circumstances where there is significant evidence suggesting the need for such an intrusive measure?

Additionally, it is crucial to ensure that safeguards are in place to prevent any inappropriate or intrusive use of the power. Given the sensitivity of extracting data from electronic devices, there is a need for strict guidelines and oversight to ensure that the power is not abused. How will the Government ensure that the power is used proportionately and responsibly? What measures will be put in place to prevent overreach and protect the privacy of individuals who are not involved in criminal activity? For example, will there be a requirement for judicial authorisation before enforcement officers can access private data? Will there be any independent oversight to review the use of these powers and prevent misuse?

I would be grateful if the Minister outlined the safeguards and controls that will be implemented to ensure that the power is not used excessively or for purposes outside its intended scope. Furthermore, what will the procedures be for ensuring accountability and transparency in the use of this power?

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

The shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Bridgwater asked me the “how long is a piece of string?” question—that is, how often the powers will be used. The best thing I can do is to come back to both of them with how often they have been used in recent times because, of course, there is an existing power with the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.

I was asked various questions about the use of powers, oversight and so on. Clauses 78 and 79 set out the powers that officers have. As we have discussed, we expect that these things will be the culmination of an ongoing dialogue between a particular business and the fair work agency. When there is non-compliance, these powers can be used as a last resort. Clause 83 sets out some of the oversight provisions.

Nick Timothy (Conservative, West Suffolk)

Government amendment 190 is about the powers in section 37 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which relate to the voluntary provision of a device for an enforcement officer to access. If there is not agreement, I am not sure what arises. The Minister just said that the proposal is about dealing with a situation whereby a negotiation between the fair work agency and the company has not led to a resolution. What happens if there is not agreement?

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

As I said, if there is not agreement, the provisions in clauses 78, 79 and 83, which we debated last week, will come into play.

On the existing framework, the powers that we have set out are already in use. The Bill will make them available to all enforcement officers. They will be used only by people who have sufficient training and oversight within the organisation.

I was asked whether the code of practice will be updated. We are engaging with the Home Office on that. That is something that needs to be considered, given that the agency is being formed.

The hon. Member for West Suffolk was right to ask about proportionality. We do not see that there will be any change in how the system works on an operational basis as a result of these amendments. They really are about transposing the existing powers and safeguards into the Bill.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

Part 5 of the Bill lays the groundwork for the creation of the fair work agency. It involves abolishing the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority and the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, and transferring their functions to the Secretary of State.

Schedule 6 sets out consequential amendments that we are making to various Acts of Parliament as a result of these reforms. Part 1 of the schedule covers the consequential amendments to existing powers under relevant pieces of labour market legislation. Part 2 sets out the changes required to other Acts. The schedule is necessary to deliver a functioning and cohesive statute book and to deliver the policy intention of upgrading enforcement of workers’ rights.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

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

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

Steve Darling (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

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

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I understand what the Opposition Members are saying. They seek reassurance that there will be no disruption to the good work that goes on already, and clearly, that is our intent. We will keep a close eye on how this works when the Bill has passed and received Royal Assent. A lot of the operational questions that have been asked will emerge during that time. Whether the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire remains my shadow—either of us could of course be moved on at any point—it would be perfectly reasonable for us to keep the Opposition updated on operational decisions and how the fair work agency emerges. There will of course be further parliamentary opportunities for scrutiny as more detail emerges.

Schedule 7 - Transitional and saving provision relating to Part 5

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I beg to move amendment 191, in schedule 7, page 146, line 19, after “by” insert “or in relation to”.

This amendment and amendment 192 ensure that things done in relation to existing enforcement officers, for example, before the coming into force of Part 5 of the Bill continue to have effect as if done in relation to the Secretary of State.

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 192, 197 and 200.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

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

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

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

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

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

Ashley Fox (Conservative, Bridgwater)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I think both Opposition Members who spoke were supportive of the amendments, although they raised legitimate questions about why they were necessary. As the shadow Minister pointed out, we had an ambitious timetable—a manifesto commitment—to issue the Bill within 100 days. Even when Bills are many years in gestation, there are often amendments in Committee to clarify issues, and to ensure that the Bill does what it says on the tin and is legally coherent. These amendments are an example of that process. I am sure Members appreciate how important it is that the amendments are passed, so that we can ensure that everything carries on and is as effective as possible.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I beg to move amendment 193, schedule 7, page 147, line 2, at end insert—

“( ) an officer acting for the purposes of Part 2A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996;”

The effect of this amendment is that the transitional provision in paragraph 6 of Schedule 7 to the Bill would apply in relation to officers acting for the purposes of Part 2A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (which relates to the enforcement of employment tribunal awards). The functions of such officers are being transferred to the Secretary of State by the Bill.

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 194 and 195.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

Government amendment 193 makes transitional provision in relation to the transfer of functions of officers acting for the purposes of part 2A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 to the Secretary of State. That transitional provision will ensure that anything done by those officers acting for the purposes of part 2A of that Act, relating to enforcement of financial awards by employment tribunals, will continue to have effect. As such, the amendment allows for the continuity of enforcing employment rights once the Bill has passed.

Amendment 194 facilitates a minor drafting change as a consequence of Government amendment 195. Amendment 195 ensures that officers of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, acting under any enactment other than the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, are within the scope of schedule 7. That ensures that things done by them before commencement of the Bill continue to have effect after commencement. I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that the effect of the amendments is solely to ensure that the legislation is clear and unambiguous and that any activity will continue on that basis.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

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

Ashley Fox (Conservative, Bridgwater)

Amendment 193 addresses the need for a seamless transition in the enforcement of employment tribunal awards. It specifically ensures that the transitional provision in paragraph 6 of schedule 7 to the Bill will apply to officers acting under part 2A of the 1996 Act, which governs the enforcement of employment tribunal awards. This is an important step as the enforcement of the tribunal awards will now fall under the responsibility of the Secretary of State, as stipulated in the Bill. By making the provision, the amendment ensures that the functions previously handled by officers enforcing tribunal awards will continue smoothly during the transition, even as the legal authority for enforcement shifts.

The inclusion of the amendment is crucial for legal continuity. It guarantees that actions taken by officers acting under the 1996 Act will still have legal effect even as their functions are transferred to the Secretary of State and the fair work agency. The amendment essentially ensures that any ongoing enforcement activities related to employment tribunal awards remain valid, preventing legal confusion or disruption during the reorganisation. It also ensures that the change in responsibility from individual enforcement officers to the Secretary of State does not cause any delay or interruption in enforcement actions. This will help to maintain confidence in the process, both for workers seeking to enforce their tribunal awards and businesses affected by these decisions.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

Opposition Members raise the same point as before about why we have had to introduce this amendment now. I refer the shadow Minister to my previous comments on that matter; no doubt I may do so again.

Both Opposition Members have rightly raised the concern about ensuring continuity when the body is instigated. Clearly, what we would expect and hope is that the day-to-day operations of enforcement officers on the ground are not impinged or affected by the creation of the agency. The Bill and a number of amendments are about ensuring that their functions continue smoothly.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I beg to move amendment 196, in schedule 7, page 147, line 11, at end insert—

“(4A) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) are subject to the remaining provisions of this Schedule (and see also section 114, which confers power to make transitional or saving provision).”

This amendment makes it clear that the general provision in paragraph 6 of Schedule 7 is subject to any more specific provision in that Schedule.

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 198 and 199.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

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

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

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

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

Ashley Fox (Conservative, Bridgwater)

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

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

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

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

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

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I sense that the Opposition Members are supportive of the amendments. The shadow Minister challenged me on whether there will be any more minor or consequential amendments. I cannot give him an absolute guarantee on that; it is always an iterative process when Bills are issued; we take notice of what stakeholders say in their feedback, as well as other Government Departments. Of course, it is important that we get these things done before the Bill becomes law, by which time it is too late. I hope the Committee is reassured that there is an ongoing process to ensure that there is certainty and coherence in the legislation as we prepare for Report.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I beg to move amendment 201, in schedule 7, page 148, line 16, at end insert—

“8A “(1) This paragraph applies to information which—

(a) was obtained in the course of—

(i) exercising the powers conferred by section 9 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 (“the 1973 Act”), or

(ii) exercising powers by virtue of section 26(1) of the Immigration Act 2016, and

(b) immediately before the coming into force of paragraph 2 of Schedule 6, is held by an officer acting for the purposes of the 1973 Act.

(2) On the coming into force of that paragraph, information to which this paragraph applies vests in the Secretary of State.”

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 202.

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment 202.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

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

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

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

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

Ashley Fox (Conservative, Bridgwater)

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

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

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

Peter Bedford (Conservative, Mid Leicestershire)

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would have been better and more efficient for the Bill to come before the House in a more final version, which may have put at ease many of us with concerns about the cracks that may still exist?

Ashley Fox (Conservative, Bridgwater)

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. The reason that the Bill is in such poor condition is that the Labour party was under a political obligation to its trade union friends to bring it forward within 100 days. Had it waited a month or two, we would not have needed such detailed scrutiny and so many Government amendments. Occasionally one hears a tut or a groan from Government Members as we try to scrutinise the Bill, but really it is entirely the Government’s fault for bringing forward such a poorly drafted piece of legislation.

As I was saying, without amendments 201 and 202, confusion or legal obstacles could prevent the use of such information, creating gaps in the enforcement process. By making it clear that the Secretary of State has the authority to use and disclose such information under clause 98, the amendments ensure that the enforcement process remains uninterrupted, effective and legally coherent.

Overall, the amendments are sensible and necessary to guarantee that nothing falls through the cracks as the responsibilities for enforcing labour laws transition from existing structures to the fair work agency. As the Bill centralises enforcement functions, it is essential that any information collected under the old system remains accessible and usable by the new agency. That is particularly important given the potential impact on ongoing investigations, compliance checks and prosecutions. By ensuring that previously collected information can still be used effectively, the amendments will help to prevent disruptions or delays in enforcement, safeguarding both workers and businesses.

It is worth noting that the transition to a new enforcement structure can often be fraught with challenges. The Bill will alter not only the bodies responsible for enforcement, but the way in which information and data are managed. The amendments will help address the practical aspects of the transition, ensuring that the fair work agency has the resources and information it needs to continue performing its duties effectively. In doing so, they will create a smoother handover of powers and responsibilities from the previous enforcement regime to the new framework.

Throughout the Committee’s proceedings, we have debated many Government amendments of a similar nature. Amendments 201 and 202 are necessary to fine-tune the Bill and ensure that all aspects of the transition are fully addressed, but the sheer volume of amendments at this stage leaves me with some concern, as it suggests that the Bill may not have fully accounted for all the transitional issues at the outset, and there may still be elements that have not been addressed. Given the complexity of centralising such a significant portion of the enforcement process, it is natural to be cautious about whether any areas may have been overlooked. While these amendments are clearly intended to provide clarity and ensure continuity, the volume of amendments suggests that there may still be unanswered questions or unforeseen gaps in the transition process, which leaves me somewhat nervous that issues may have been missed in the initial drafting of the Bill. We have certainly seen that happen often enough thus far. It is crucial that all challenges or concerns relating to the transfer of enforcement powers are adequately addressed before the Bill passes. As such, I believe it is important to consider whether there are any outstanding issues that might affect the long-term success of the transition.

Given the number of amendments and the complexity of the transition, I would appreciate the Minister’s reassurance that there is a comprehensive understanding of the full scope of the changes and that no essential elements have been left unaddressed. Are the Government confident that all necessary steps have been taken to ensure a smooth and effective transition? In particular, can the Minister assure us that the fair work agency will be fully equipped to handle its new responsibilities, including that it will be able to utilise critical information from the prior enforcement system without any disruptions? I would also like to hear about the monitoring processes that will be in place to oversee the transition period and ensure that any unforeseen issues are quickly addressed, which is vital for maintaining business confidence and worker protections throughout the period of change.

While the amendments are crucial for ensuring that enforcement activities continue smoothly during the transition, they should ideally have been made earlier in the process to avoid the need for these later clarifications. Having a more comprehensive and cohesive framework in place at the outset would have reduced uncertainty and provided greater assurance to all parties involved. Never-theless, the amendments go a long way to addressing the issues that could arise during the handover of enforcement responsibilities, and ensuring that the transition to the fair work agency will be as smooth and effective as possible.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

The shadow Minister asked whether it is our intention to have the Bill shipshape before we send it to the other place. That is absolutely our intention, and the amendments that have been debated today are part of that.

The criticism from the hon. Member for Bridgwater about the number of Government amendments has been noted. It was important that we kept to our manifesto commitment to issue the Bill within 100 days, but I have to say that when I was an Opposition Member I do not think I ever sat on a Bill Committee where the Government did not introduce their own amendments. If he is able to come up with some examples, I would be delighted to hear from him. I am afraid he will probably have to sit on a few more Bill Committees, and he will see that that is perfectly normal in the way these things work. After a Bill is published, it has more eyes on it; other stakeholders, Government Departments and agencies get to see it, and they offer views and feedback. It is right that we take account of those views and make what are often technical and minor amendments to make sure that the Bill has the intended legal effect.

The hon. Member asked whether any other essential elements have been omitted. The amendments we are debating are about ensuring that the fair work agency is functioning and effective from Royal Assent. I cannot give him a guarantee that there will not be other things that come out, but we have been doing a considerable amount of work, as can be seen by the number of amendments, to make sure that the Bill will be fully operational and that there will be no effect on the day-to-day running of the work of the enforcement officers and the creation of the fair work agency.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

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

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

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

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

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

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

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

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

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

Order. We will debate amendment 204 separately.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

I am sorry, Mr Mundell.

Ashley Fox (Conservative, Bridgwater)

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

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

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

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

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

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

I believe I have already addressed the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Bridgwater on several occasions this morning, although I take his points.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

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

“10A (1) Where—

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

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

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

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

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

10B (1) Where—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

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

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

Welcome back, and happy new year. The debate on Government amendment 204 to schedule 7 has already commenced.

Ashley Fox (Conservative, Bridgwater)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Government amendment 204 is crucial to ensuring that functions currently performed by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 continue seamlessly after the powers are transferred to the Secretary of State. As part of the broader restructuring outlined in the Bill, those functions will be absorbed into the newly established fair work agency, which will take on the role of overseeing labour rights and enforcement activities.

It is essential that the transfer of these powers does not lead to any gaps in the enforcement of laws relating to modern slavery, human trafficking and labour exploitation. The GLAA has played a pivotal role in investigating and combating labour abuse, particularly in high-risk sectors such as agriculture, horticulture and construction. By ensuring the smooth continuation of these functions under the fair work agency, we are reinforcing our commitment to protecting vulnerable workers and ensuring that modern slavery offences are actively pursued.

Moreover, the amendment will guarantee that the dedicated focus on tackling labour exploitation is preserved even as responsibilities shift. The fair work agency will now serve as the central body for enforcing these laws, and it is critical that its operations are fully equipped to carry forward the work done by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, particularly in investigating and preventing cases of modern slavery.

I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister for a more detailed assessment of how the creation of the fair work agency will enhance our ability to identify and prevent modern slavery offences. Given the increasing complexity of labour exploitation and the fact that modern slavery offences often take place in hidden, clandestine environments, the need for a robust, dedicated enforcement body is more pressing than ever.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz, and I wish you a happy new year too. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I will not detain the Committee long, as I think the support from Opposition Members for the amendment is clear. Before lunch, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire asked how this measure will make things more effective. I refer him to the evidence given by a number of stakeholders, including the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, Margaret Beels, who explained that the current fragmented system makes it difficult to ensure that intelligence is shared correctly. The hon. Member for Bridgwater used the word “clandestine”. A lot of the people engaged in labour market abuses are operating under the radar, and therefore anything we can do to ensure that intelligence is shared and resources are combined has to be a good thing, so that these abuses are stamped out.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

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

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

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

Clause 111 - Meaning of “non-compliance with relevant labour market legislation”

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

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

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

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

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

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

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

Clause 112 - Interpretation: general

New Clause 5 - Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: removal of waiting period

New Clause 6 - Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: lower earnings limit etc

New Clause 7 - Employment outside Great Britain

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

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

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 110.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

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

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

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

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

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

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

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

New Clause 8 - Power to enter dwelling subject to warrant

New Clause 9 - Warrants

New Clause 10 - Increase in time limits for making claims

New Clause 11 - Orders and regulations under Employment Rights Act 1996: procedure

New Clause 48 - Seafarers’ wages and working conditions

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

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

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

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

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

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

to those two conventions? Precisely what regulations are needed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(b) the issue of certificates;

(c) the furnishing of information.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

“make different provision for different purposes”.

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

I also do not think it is appropriate that regulations to

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

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

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

Ashley Fox (Conservative, Bridgwater)

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

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

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

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

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

A fundamental part of this debate revolves around the question: what regulations are actually required to implement the two conventions? Although the Government claim that the regulations are necessary to meet the commitments set out in the conventions, the Minister should provide specific examples of the types of regulations that the Government intend to create under this broad power. If he did so, the Committee would be better able to assess the scope and impact of the regulations and determine whether they are necessary.

Furthermore, the Government must be transparent in justifying the regulations they propose. It is essential for Parliament to know the precise nature of the regulations and how they will directly benefit seafarers and those working in the fishing industry. Article VI of the maritime labour convention outlines a series of fundamental rights for seafarers, including

“the right to a safe and secure workplace…fair terms of employment…decent working and living conditions on board ship”

and

“health protection, medical care, welfare measures and other forms of social protection.”

Given that those rights are clearly outlined and vital to the protection of seafarers, I ask the Minister: which of them are not already enforceable under UK law? Are there specific gaps in current legislation that prevent their effective enforcement? If so, will the Government provide clarity as to why those gaps have persisted for so long, and what specific measures are now being introduced to address them?

Additionally, I would appreciate clarification on whether there are any difficulties in implementing the responsibilities outlined in article V of the maritime labour convention. This article focuses on the implementation and enforcement of the convention’s provisions, which are essential for protecting workers in the maritime sector. Have the Government encountered challenges in enforcing the responsibilities under current law? If so, what specific issues have arisen, and how do the Government plan to resolve them? Providing these details will help us to better understand the need for the proposed legislative changes.

Will the Minister clarify whether any of the provisions of the work in fishing convention are currently unenforceable under UK law? If so, what specific provisions are problematic, and what changes will be required to ensure that they can be effectively enforced? Given the significant risks faced by workers in the fishing industry, it is crucial that the provisions are enforced, so Ministers should provide a clear outline of the steps the Government intend to take to close any gaps in enforcement.

New clause 52 also grants the Secretary of State the power to make regulations regarding

“the checking or monitoring of compliance”

with the provisions. That includes, among other things,

“provision for—

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

(b) the issue of certificates;

(c) the furnishing of information.”

The language used in the new clause is vague, and I am particularly concerned about the phrase “furnishing of information”. What exactly does that entail? What types of information is the Secretary of State planning to collect, and how will it be used? Could this lead to unnecessary or intrusive burdens on businesses, workers or even individuals involved in maritime employment? The Minister must clarify what the power entails and provide reassurance that it will not lead to overreach or misuse.

To emphasise my concern further, I ask the Minister to point to any specific occasions when the Government’s ability to enforce the provisions of the maritime labour convention has been found lacking. Can the Minister cite an example of where existing mechanisms were insufficient to uphold the conventions? If such an example exists, I suggest that we focus on targeting solutions directly at the root of the problem, rather than resorting to broad, unchecked powers, as provided for in proposed new section 84B(4). This warrants focused action, not a sweeping Government mandate.

The provision in proposed new section 84B(5), which allows the Government to

“provide for the detention of a ship in respect of which a contravention of the regulations is suspected”,

raises serious concerns. Will the Minister explain in greater detail how such detention would work? Specifically, how long could a ship be detained under such a provision, and what types of infractions would trigger that action? Detaining a vessel can have significant financial and operational consequences, so it is critical to understand the scope and limits of the power.

Furthermore, proposed new section 84B(8) states that the regulations may make

“different provision for different purposes.”

What limits are in place to ensure that this power is not used in an arbitrary or disproportionate way? It is essential for Parliament to understand the boundaries of the power and to ensure that it cannot be misused in the future. This is not so much a Henry VIII clause as a Louis XIV clause, allowing the Government to do precisely what they like without any restriction of any description whatsoever.

I have serious concerns about the fact that regulations to implement international agreements, including those relating to maritime employment, are subject to the negative procedure. That means that Parliament could be denied the opportunity to debate the regulations in detail. Given the significant impact of the regulations on workers and employers alike, Parliament should be guaranteed the ability to discuss and scrutinise them thoroughly. The current approach of granting Ministers unchecked power is concerning and, as I have outlined, leaves little room for proper oversight.

Moreover, the Government have introduced new clause 52 with very little opportunity for us to scrutinise its content. This rushed approach to legislation is discourteous to the House and undermines the democratic process. With so many critical powers being handed to Ministers, we should have been given ample time to examine the proposal and assess its implications fully. We as lawmakers need to be able to better understand the necessity and potential consequences of the new clause.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

We have heard two similar speeches from the Opposition that have raised a number of similar questions. The first question is: why do we need this? The whole suite of amendments and new clauses are in response to concerns that were rightly highlighted by all parties in condemning the P&O debacle and its underlying motives to undercut existing UK workers and employment laws by transferring people to lower terms and conditions. It is about stopping that race to the bottom. Members will recall the evidence from representatives of the sector in Committee sittings in November. They welcomed the provisions and were keen to see them introduced, because they wanted a level playing field. They did not want to be undercut by people who would seek to pay their staff the minimum necessary. It is about creating a level playing field and putting safeguards in place.

I point out to Opposition Members that the conventions are already UK law. The measures in this group seek to ensure that when they are amended in future, there will be an opportunity to update our own laws to reflect any changes in the conventions. It was a fair question from the shadow Minister to ask what the conventions cover, and they obviously look at it important issues such as maximum hours of work, medical care, accommodation and access to food and drinking water. The maritime labour convention has been amended several times, with new requirements coming in only last month for seafarers to be provided with food and drinking water free of charge during their engagement, as well as provisions in relation to personal protective equipment and ensuring that they have access to social connectivity while at sea.

The new measures are important to improve the working conditions of seafarers, and we currently do not have a mechanism to update our own laws to reflect them. Previously, when we were a member of the EU, the treaties were considered to be community treaties, which meant they were dealt with through regulations. We now need powers in our own legislation to ensure that we can keep up to date with developments in maritime law and protections.

The shadow Minister asked how the powers might be used. Several amendments have been proposed to the convention, including to strengthen seafarers’ access to shore leave and improving protections against bullying and sexual harassment. We need to ensure that the powers in the legislation enable us to keep up with those important protections.

Both Opposition Members mentioned the phrase

“different provision for different purposes”.

My understanding is that the power relates to the implementation of changes to the conventions rather than a broader power, as was suggested.

The point about the negative procedure was noted. The drafting indicates that the initial implementation of regulations will be done by the affirmative procedure and thereafter changes to the law will be made by the negative procedure on the basis that those will be much more modest. The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire is welcome to table an amendment on Report if he thinks that the affirmative procedure should apply to all those issues.

There was a question about furnishing records. If we are going to ensure compliance with international obligations, it is important that those subject to them can document their compliance with the regulations. There is therefore a power to ensure that those records are produced to demonstrate compliance. That is not a departure from the existing arrangements.

There was a general question about the detention of ships. Existing regulations and implementation of the conventions allow for detention to continue or to be introduced where there is concern about compliance or about the health, safety and welfare of those on board the ships. I cannot give any examples of when that has been used, but I recall back in the depths of time a number of occasions when ships were stuck in port for a considerable time. I would have to check whether that was under this regulation, but I can send the hon. Member for Bridgwater further details.

The powers that we seek to introduce are important to make sure that we keep up to date with the latest developments in international maritime law. It is important that there is a level playing field and that people doing this difficult and important work are protected. We must ensure that we never have a situation where employers such as P&O attempt a race to the bottom and we must ensure that standards are maintained across the board. On that basis, I commend these amendments to the Committee.

New Clause 49 - Information relating to the intelligence services, etc

New Clause 50 - Providing false information or documents: national security etc defence

New Clause 52 - International agreements relating to maritime employment

‘Part 3A - International agreements relating to maritime employment

New Clause 2 - Prison officers: inducements to withhold services

Peter Bedford (Conservative, Mid Leicestershire)

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

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Peter Bedford (Conservative, Mid Leicestershire)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Why am I moving a new clause tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)? I asked myself that question. I believe that it is important that the Committee hear and debate in full every proposed amendment to this truly awful Bill. Indeed, this is why my constituents in Mid Leicestershire sent me to this place. They likely knew what the make-up of the House of Commons, and therefore the composition of this Committee, would be after the election. I believe they would want me to hold the Government to account, particularly on legislation such as this.

Even though I find the views of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington completely unagreeable, he has been sent to this place to put on record what he believes is right. It will be interesting to see how many on the Government side agree with his new clauses. In layman’s terms, new clauses 2 and 3 relate to allowing prison officers the right to strike. I am sure their instinct is to support these new clauses. I will take the time to outline why I believe this would be a step in the wrong direction.

Prisons are essential for every functioning society. They serve out punishment, act as a deterrent and reform offenders. The prison guard—or screw, to use the colloquial vernacular—plays a crucial role in maintaining these key purposes. In 2024, there were more than 23,614 prison guards in England and Wales. This increased by 5,000 during the term of the last Conservative Government. I am sure that everyone on the Committee will be thankful for the work of Conservative colleagues in increasing that total.

Anecdotally, when I speak to residents in my Mid Leicestershire constituency, a large majority believe that prison officers do a great job and should be commended for all they do to keep us safe. Although my constituency does not have an active prison within its boundaries, there are three nearby in the county of Leicestershire. First, there is HMP Gartree, which is located to the south-east of Leicester city, a short drive from Mid Leicestershire. It is a category B prison and has had some notable inmates over the last 60 years. There is also HMP Fosse Way, which is a category C prison located to the south of the city. Finally, there is HMP Leicester, a category B prison in the city centre that hosts more than 400 inmates. In fact, the strange castle design of the prison leads to many tourists visiting it and taking photos.

The prisons offer three incredible employment opportunities for my constituents in Mid Leicestershire, but I fundamentally believe that they would be deeply concerned about the provisions in these new clauses. What would happen in these prisons on strike day? Would prisoners be able to do as they pleased? Would they be left in their cells? Who would be there to care for them if something terrible—

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

On a point of order, Ms Vaz. Is it in order for a Member to move a new clause and then speak against it?

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

I am waiting to hear what the hon. Member says when he gets to the end of his remarks.

Peter Bedford (Conservative, Mid Leicestershire)

Thank you, Ms Vaz. Who would be there to care for them if something terrible were to happen? Most importantly, for my constituents, who is there to stop these prisoners getting out of the prison grounds? We could have a situation whereby, within a short journey of Mid Leicestershire, hundreds of inmates are on the run. Furthermore, with the funding settlement that the Government have announced for rural areas such as Mid Leicestershire, it is questionable whether the police would be able to catch those who have escaped.

It appears that my opinion is not unique. YouGov has been polling the UK public on the matter since August 2019, when 52% of the public thought that prison guards should not be able to strike. Incredibly, even through tough times, that figure has increased to 54%.

I believe that the public would be particularly sceptical about new clauses 2 and 3 because of the riots that they have seen on prison grounds, which unfortunately have happened even when prison officers have been on the premises. For example, many remember the riots at Strangeways in 1990, which were caused by poor officer-prisoner relations and poor conditions on prison grounds.

I am also concerned about the two-tier impact on police and prison officers. The policing profession is intrinsically linked to that of prison officers. Police officers are at the heart of keeping the public safe. Police officers throughout the UK join the profession willingly and, because of their professionalism, accept that they will never be able to strike. Police officers throughout the UK know how important it is to keep the public safe. In fact, many police officers I talk to express their annoyance at how little they can do to fight real crime when a lot of their time is taken up by other issues, such as non-crime hate incidents and investigating dubious posts on social media.

However, the crux of the argument against new clauses 2 and 3 is public safety and the lack of supervision should they be accepted. I therefore hope that they are not added to the Bill.

Steve Darling (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

I am sure that my residents would be horrified that these proposals are seeing the light of day in the Committee. I am shocked that Conservative Members are putting them out there. I expected us just to pass on by them, but I want to make sure that it is on the record that the Liberal Democrats do not support these rather peculiar proposals, which have only seen the light of day thanks to a Conservative Member.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

There are approximately 170,000 words in the “Oxford English Dictionary”, but I am struggling to find one to adequately encapsulate the speech by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire. It is clearly a novel approach to a Bill Committee to move an amendment and then speak against it. I do not think anything he said would have persuaded me the other way had I not already been minded to oppose the new clauses, although he did his best.

It is important that we put on the record our appreciation for the work of prison officers. They work in difficult environments every day, dealing with very challenging people, and we recognise that they are critical to keeping the public safe. Under the current legislation, prison officers are prevented from taking industrial action, and their pay is governed by the independent Prison Service Pay Review Body, which acts as a compensatory mechanism for that restriction. Indeed, one of the first actions of this Government was to accept the pay review body recommendations for 2024-25, and we delivered on our commitment to launch the 2025-26 pay review body process in September, three months earlier than the previous Government did. Our written evidence to the body for the next pay round was published on 10 December, paving the way for a timely pay round. We are well positioned for that process to conclude. We need to ensure that everyone who works in a prison has the right to decent conditions and a fair reward for their hard work. The Government are committed to achieving that, but I believe that we can do so without the need for legislative change.

Prison officers are essential to maintaining order and control in prisons. A withdrawal of their services, as we have heard, even if only partial, would create a risk to order and to the life and limb of individuals. There are limited contingency plans in place to deal with strike action and, during such incidents, reliance on a narrow pool of operational managers and support from the police would create risks. I am sure that Members do not need that spelling out. This would also result in significant disruption to the operation of the courts and the police, representing a significant risk to public safety.

I know that the POA is very keen, understandably, to have this proposal enacted. Its representatives have met the Justice Secretary recently, and they continue to do so, and I have spoken to them. I understand their view, but we cannot agree to this at this point. I do not know whether the amendment will be pushed to a vote—I suspect that it will not be, from what the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire said—but we will not support it.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

I just say that the Clerks have checked, and it is in order to move an amendment and then speak against it.

Peter Bedford (Conservative, Mid Leicestershire)

Held by my arguments and the arguments put forward by hon. Members, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 4 - Non-disclosure agreements: harassment

Steve Darling (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

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

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 4, in clause 118, page 104, line 32, at end insert—

“(aa) section [

This is a consequential amendment to NC4, to ensure its implementation.

Steve Darling (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

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

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

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

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

First, I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for moving the new clause. This is his clause 4 moment—the road to socialism is often a long one, but I am glad to see he is taking steps towards it. He raises an important topic on behalf of the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran); indeed, a number of Members of the House have discussed it with me over a period of time, because the use of non-disclosure agreements presents challenges.

As has been said, NDAs can be used quite legitimately in different contexts and contracts. As the responsible Department for the use of NDAs in employment relationships, we recognise that they can have a legitimate role, such as to protect trade secrets, intellectual property and commercially sensitive information. Of course their most common use is in allowing workers and employers to reach a settlement on a dispute or a claim. It goes without saying that a worker may want to settle a dispute and receive the confidentiality protections associated with a settlement agreement to avoid going through an employment tribunal, which can be a distressing experience in itself. Having a non-disclosure agreement can also increase the value of such an agreement, depending how negotiations go.

There are existing legal limits to the use of NDAs in the employment context. For example, any clauses of an NDA that sought to stop a worker blowing the whistle to a lawyer or a prescribed person under the legislation would not be enforceable. The use of an NDA by an employer may amount to a criminal offence if it is an attempt by the employer to pervert the course of justice or conceal a criminal offence. A settlement agreement under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and any confidentiality clauses it contains is void if the worker did not receive independent advice on the terms and effect of the agreement. Speaking as one who has given such advice on countless occasions, I can assure the Committee that this a matter the legal profession takes very seriously. None the less, workers may not be aware of their rights.

Both the Equality and Human Rights Commission and ACAS have published guidance on NDAs, but reports continue of improper use of NDAs, as the hon. Member for Torbay mentioned, particularly in relation to sexual harassment, discrimination and bullying in the workplace. Last year, the Women and Equalities Committee inquiry into misogyny in music and the Treasury Committee inquiry into sexism in the City reported on the misuse of NDAs in specific sectors and industries. Their reports highlighted how NDAs can have a silencing effect on some victims, who come under pressure to sign an NDA and are not aware of their existing rights, and how NDAs may be a part of wider organisational cultures and practices for some employers. We have heard a clear example of that today. The Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Legal Services Board have also recently conducted a call for evidence and a thematic review into the use of NDAs among the legal profession. Overall, those reports highlight that, while we have seen some progress and some positive developments, the issues in this space are multiple and persistent. The Government are live to the concerns about the misuse of NDAs to intimidate and silence victims of crime and other types of misconduct, particularly harassment, discrimination, and bullying.

The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 contains a measure that, when commenced, will ensure that victims can report a crime, co-operate with regulators and access confidential advice and support without fear of legal action. It does so by providing that any clauses in NDAs seeking to prevent those actions cannot legally be enforced. The Ministry of Justice is carefully considering plans to bring the relevant section of that Act into force and will be working closely with the victim support and business sectors to ensure that the new measure is implemented and deployed effectively. We continue to listen carefully to representations on further action needed to curb the misuse of NDAs.

The specific wording that is proposed today would make any provision in an agreement precluding a worker from making a relevant disclosure that relates to harassment carried out by a fellow worker, or client of their employer, unenforceable. Under the consequential amendment, the measure would come into force on the day that this legislation is passed. I have some reservations about the amendment as drafted, as it would make a significant change from the current position and there might be unintended consequences.

To render provisions related to disclosures on harassment unenforceable could have negative effects on both workers and employers. A worker may want to settle a dispute over harassment and receive the confidentiality protections associated with a settlement agreement. The proposal may also impact on their ability to reach a settlement and avoid going to an employment tribunal, or may indeed reduce the value of such an agreement. The amendment may also lead to uncertainty for both employers and workers who have entered into NDAs previously.

The Government are looking into this. There is obviously some evidence, and there was a Government consultation, but that was some time ago, so we intend to look more closely at what we can do in this area. I have met some of the interested parties and there are other proposals to deal with this issue that might be slightly more workable than those in the new clause proposed by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. I say to him that although we are aware of this issue and know it needs attention, we are not able to support the new clause.

Steve Darling (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

I welcome the Minister’s reassurances and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

New Clause 12 - Substitution Clauses

Nick Timothy (Conservative, West Suffolk)

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

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

With this it will be convenient to consider amendment 111, in clause 118, page 104, line 32, at end insert—

“(aa) section [Substitution clauses];”

This is a consequential amendment to NC12, to ensure its implementation.

Nick Timothy (Conservative, West Suffolk)

Despite the differences of opinion expressed during these weeks in Committee, we all believe that the rights of workers are essential. In that spirit, I hope that Members across the political divide can see the merit in what I am proposing today.

The labour abuse that the new clause seeks to address is the use of substitution clauses to flout labour laws and fuel the employment of illegal workers. Transparency is essential to guarantee fairness and justice in the labour market, and the unlawful labour of undocumented migrants and others who might be paid less than the minimum wage or be given no legal protections is obviously not good for the workers themselves, for our society, for taxpayers, or for anyone who wants a law-abiding society.

It is my understanding that Ministers will be consulting on employment status, and that they are considering moving to a two-part legal framework that identifies people who are genuinely self-employed as part of their work in the gig economy. That is obviously worth doing, but the new clause addresses a narrower issue that is clearly causing significant abuse and exploitation right now. I want us to take the opportunity to act swiftly and decisively.

There are 4.7 million gig economy workers in the UK, including 120,000 official riders—and many more non-official riders—at Uber Eats and Deliveroo, two of the largest delivery companies in the country. For years now we have heard stories of the rampant abuse and fraud committed under the auspices of these companies. In late 2018 to early 2019, there were 14,000 fraudulent Uber car journeys, according to Transport for London. In addition to Uber and Deliveroo, Amazon and Just Eat have been caught up in accusations of related labour market abuses. Some of these examples have related to the legal loopholes created by substitution clauses.

With its substitution clauses, Amazon tells 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 on the part of these big employers to pass the responsibility for compliance with criminal and right-to-work checks on to their workers. They clearly have an interest in maintaining the status quo where undocumented migrants are taking the lowest fees in the delivery apps. Data from the Rodeo app shows the impact of this 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 during the same period, and Deliveroo has blocked its order fee data from being published. Although those numbers are not adjusted for inflation, it is clear to see how pay and conditions have worsened for riders. By undercutting domestic workers and exploiting those with no legal right to be here, companies are privatising profits and socialising costs. Promises from the companies to introduce tougher security checks have not made this problem go away, and nobody should be above the law.

Action is sometimes taken by the authorities, but progress has been too slow. In 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that Uber drivers are employees and entitled to statutory rights. As a result, VAT was added to Uber journeys that year, but Uber accounts are still being used for journeys by unauthorised drivers, despite a temporary licence removal in London. In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that Deliveroo drivers are independent freelancers, not employees entitled to certain labour rights. My argument is that we cannot wait for judges to act; it is our job as parliamentarians to legislate when there are clear abuses of power and clear social problems caused by behaviour that the law currently allows.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

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

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

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

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

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

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

Nick Timothy (Conservative, West Suffolk)

I thank the Minister for his constructive reply. If he is willing to have further conversations with me about what solutions we might be able to bring to bear on this problem, I will be happy to withdraw the new clause now. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 13 - Rates of statutory maternity pay, etc

Steve Darling (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for assisting in tabling the new clause, which is about ensuring that we put the family at the heart of our society by doubling the rates of maternity, paternity, adoption, shared paternity and parental bereavement pay, which are really important when people are on leave. Sadly, a lot of men choose not to take up these opportunities. We will discuss later our proposals on kinship care and fostering, and this is all part of that bigger picture. By supporting families with these four proposals in the three key areas that they cover, we are putting family at the heart of our world. One only has to reflect on social care and children’s social care, and the significant cost where there is family breakdown, to see that the more the state can do to support families, the better.

I would like to move on to kinship care, where there are real opportunities. I know that the all-party parliamentary group on kinship care has discussed these measures and sees this as a real opportunity for the Government to move positively to support kinship carers.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

Order. Can I just interrupt the hon. Gentleman? That is the next new clause. We are on rates of statutory maternity pay, etc.

Steve Darling (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

That is fine. As I said, the new clause is about supporting the family, and I hope the Minister will give serious consideration to our proposals. Apologies for misunderstanding, Ms Vaz.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

That is fine—don’t worry.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

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

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

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Torbay for introducing the new clause, and for his absolute sincerity in wanting to support families.

The Government are committed to ensuring that employed parents receive the best level of support to balance their work and family lives. Our plan to make work pay will ensure that employees are supported to work while balancing their essential family responsibilities. We understand that parental leave and pay entitlements are a key part of that, and that is why the Bill will already make changes to parental leave.

The new clause would double the existing rate of statutory parental payments from £184.03 to £368.06. When considering calls to increase the level of parental pay generally, we need to consider the impact on limited resources and the burden on employers. Changes to parental pay would require careful consideration alongside tax reform and consideration in the wider context of benefits and employment rights over the longer term, and they would need to be made in consultation with businesses and stakeholders.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is required by law to undertake an annual review of benefits and state pensions, including statutory payments. That is based on a review of trends in prices and earnings growth in the preceding year. Parental payments are generally increased in line with the consumer prices index. For example, in April, all statutory parental pay provisions, including statutory maternity pay, statutory paternity pay and statutory adoption pay, were increased by 6.7%. That is in line with other benefits.

It is worth noting that statutory parental pay is only one element of the support available to parents. Depending on individual circumstances, additional financial support, such as universal credit, child benefit and the Sure Start maternity grant—a lump sum payment of £500—may also be available. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Torbay to withdraw the motion.

Steve Darling (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

I will just share with colleagues that this measure was part of the commitments in the Liberal Democrats’ fully costed manifesto. I thank the Minister for their reassurances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 14 - Kinship care leave

‘Chapter 5 - Kinship care leave

Steve Darling (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

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

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Steve Darling (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

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

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

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

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

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

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

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

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

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

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

or if the child lives with that person

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

and that person provides

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It may be helpful to explain the support that is already available to employees who are foster parents. Employees in these circumstances are entitled to a day one right to time off for dependants, which provides for a reasonable amount of unpaid time off work to deal with an unexpected or sudden emergency involving a child or a dependant and to make arrangements for care. If they are looking after a child who is disabled or who lives with a long-term health condition, they would also be entitled to carer’s leave. That allows them to take up to a week’s leave in a 12-month period and can be particularly helpful in navigating medical appointments.

If employees are fostering to adopt, they are entitled to adoption leave and pay or paternity leave and pay, subject to meeting eligibility rules. All employees have a right to request flexible working from day one of employment. The Government are going to make flexibility the default, except where it is not feasible, through measures in the Bill, which will help people to balance their professional and personal lives. That will apply to employees who are also foster parents, and help them to navigate childcare and fostering responsibilities around work.

Local authorities and fostering agencies should understand the importance of maintaining a balance between professional responsibilities and the rewarding role of fostering. Broadly speaking, no foster carer should be financially disadvantaged because of their fostering role. We expect all foster parents to receive at least the weekly national minimum allowance, in addition to any agreed expenses to cover the full cost of caring for each child placed with them.

Fostering service providers can choose to pay above the minimum allowance or pay additional fees. Qualifying care relief is a tax relief also available to support foster carers. We encourage fostering service providers to adhere to the foster carers’ charter, which sets out clear principles for how foster carers should be treated and recognises their invaluable work. Given that existing range of entitlements and support, it would not be appropriate to amend the legislation at this time.

The Government pay tribute to the vital efforts of foster carers, which is why we are investing £15 million to boost the number of foster carers next year. That will help to recruit more foster parents by starting the work to ensure that every local authority has access to a regional recruitment hub. We expect that to generate hundreds of new foster placements, reduce local authorities’ reliance on the expensive residential care market and offer children a stable environment to grow up in.

I thank the hon. Member for Torbay for his continued important advocacy for all families, including foster and kinship families. The Government remain committed to supporting all working families. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member not to press new clauses 14, 15 and 45 to a vote.

Steve Darling (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

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

New Clause 19 - Consultation on trade union legislation

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

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

“(2) No provision of Part 4 of this Act may be brought into force in accordance with subsection (3) until the report referred to in section [

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

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ashley Fox (Conservative, Bridgwater)

Surely not.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

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

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

Will the shadow Minister give way?

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

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

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

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

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

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

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, the Government are asking for a rather sizeable blank cheque in part 4 of the Bill. The required test for the percentage of the workforce that needs to support trade union recognition is to be determined by regulations. The definition of detriment that cannot be suffered as a result of taking industrial action is to be determined by regulations. A worker’s right to have their employer provide them with a written statement of their right to join a trade union at the same time as they provide them with a statement of their employment particulars, and at further prescribed times, as specified under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, is to be set out in regulations. That is just a small snapshot of the issues that are left unresolved in part 4, and that the Government hope to push through in statutory instruments, with much less scrutiny. We think that more and better information should be provided to Parliament before part 4 is commenced.

We know who is pulling the Government’s strings here: the trade unions have been clear about their aims. As Mick Lynch said, they are pushing for the

“complete organisation of the UK economy by trade unions”.

That statement seems directly contradictory to the Government’s aim to achieve growth, and such a move is designed to take us back to the 1970s. We would like part 4 to have considerably more scrutiny and justification before it can be commenced, and that is what our new clause and amendment are designed to achieve.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

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

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

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

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

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

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

New Clause 21 - Right to switch off in relation to trade union representatives

‘Right to switch off in relation to trade union representatives

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

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

“(3A) But if the provisions of section [

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

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

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

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

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

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

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

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

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

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

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

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

Michael Wheeler (Labour, Worsley and Eccles)

Does the Minister agree that the new clause seems to have no relation to the world of work, and that Opposition Members might actually be living out the fantasy that they can switch off from us on the Government Benches?

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

If we start getting into the right to switch off from people we might not want to hear from, we could end up in a very dark place.

The shadow Minister will see from the reaction on the Government Benches that we have never had any issue with nuisance calls or pestering from trade unions when we have been in the workplace—it is really not like that at all. These proposals are indicative of the rather outdated idea that some Opposition Members have about how trade unions operate. Were they passed, one of the unintended consequences would undoubtedly be increased demand on facility time—something I am sure the shadow Minister would not be too pleased about.

Put bluntly, there is no demand for this requirement. I do not think anyone has suggested it to officials—certainly not trade unions or, indeed, employers. There is nothing to stop a union member ignoring communication from their union. There is no obligation on them to respond to messages at any time.

The employment relationship is, of course, very different to membership of a trade union, because there is a division between home and working lives, and a recognition that that has to be respected. Unfortunately, there is also an expectation that people should be constantly contactable outside of work hours. We will not be legislating to ban all communication outside of working hours; what we are looking to do is implement the statutory code of practice, which will set out clear expectations and obligations to get the balance right between allowing flexibility and making it clear that people’s home lives should be respected. There will be a consultation on that in due course, and I am sure the shadow Minister can submit something about trade unions contacting people if he wants to do so, but I suspect he will be the only one who does. But I am afraid I cannot support this new clause—or indeed take it seriously—so I reject it on that basis.

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

New Clause 22 - Assessment of the costs of establishing a single labour market enforcement body

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the direct cost to businesses, it says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

New Clause 24 - Impact assessment: sections 1 to 6

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

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

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

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

The justification for that assessment is:

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

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

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

As discussed in Committee, we have concerns about the unfair dismissal provisions in the Bill, and those are shared by businesses. The Regulatory Policy Committee has said that the provisions on unfair dismissal rights are estimated to cost businesses around £43.2 million a year, although that is probably a rather wide estimate, as we do not know what policy decision the Government will make about the regulations. For example, despite discussions in Committee, we still do not know what might count as the “initial period of employment”.

Parliament is being asked to hand this incompetent Government a blank cheque to make regulations that will implement the unfair dismissal provisions in the Bill. The Government admit that the day one unfair dismissal rights could have negative impacts on employment and hiring, which could include incentivising employers to turn to temporary or fixed-term workers. The unfair dismissal rights could make it more difficult for the unemployed or economically inactive to access jobs, either through overall negative impacts on employment and/or a strengthening of insider power.

Alex Hall-Chen from the Institute of Directors warned the Committee that

“under the current system, employers are very likely to take a risk on hiring a borderline candidate who may not have quite the right experience or qualifications, but they will now be much less likely to take that risk because the cost of getting it wrong will be considerably higher.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 8, Q2.]

I remind the Minister of what Jane Gratton of the British Chambers of Commerce said in evidence:

“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 with a light-touch approach.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 8, Q2.]

The Government’s own impact assessment is also relatively candid about this question. It states that

“risks to employment will be highest for workers with the weakest attachment to the labour market, including: (1) the low-paid, who are already most likely to be let go from work in a downturn; (2) disabled workers, who face a large ‘employment gap’; and (3) the youngest workers, since they are still gaining experience and skills.”

In other words, the Government quietly agree with businesses that a lot could go wrong here.

In the Employment Act 2002, Labour created the procedures for statutory dispute resolution, which meant that a dismissal was automatically unfair unless the employer had followed the steps set out in the regulations—namely, sending the employee a written invitation to a meeting, conducting a meeting to decide whether or not to take the action in question, and allowing the employee to appeal. Those were then repealed by the Employment Act 2008, under the same Government, because there was a deluge of cases before the employment tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal concerning the procedures and their application. The Labour Government commissioned the Gibbons review, which recommended that the statutory procedures be abolished.

I am afraid we are likely to see a similar explosion in employment tribunal cases. Those cases will be expensive to defend, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, and may take a long time to resolve if the tribunal is not appropriately resourced. What assessment have the Government made of the likely increase in cases that will need to be dealt with by tribunal because of the unfair dismissal proceedings in the Bill? The impact assessment says that the policy is expected to lead to additional early conciliation and employment tribunal cases, which carry additional costs to the employer. The impact assessment estimates that the unfair dismissal policy could lead to thousands of additional employment tribunal cases. Are the Government confident that the system can cope?

The Minister will understand that I am sceptical of any assurance he can give now, because we do not know what regulations the Government are planning to make using the powers in the Bill, and the Government have said that much of the impact of this policy will depend on the design of the final regulations. We therefore think that once the policy work has been done and we know whether the Business Secretary or the Deputy Prime Minister has won the argument, and the Government know what they are doing, it is only right that the Government can reassure this House of the tribunal’s ability to cope with additional claims.

That is what new clause 25 and amendment 129 seek to achieve: that the Secretary of State must prove that the employment tribunal can cope with the additional cases before the clauses of the Bill on unfair dismissal can be commenced. To do anything short of that would be a dereliction of duty to both employees and employers.

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

New Clause 31 - Sections 1 to 6: impact assessment

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall and Bloxwich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

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

“(ba) section [

This amendment is consequential on NC31.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

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

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

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

Justin Madders (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough)

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

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

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

Greg Smith (Conservative, Mid Buckinghamshire)

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

Written evidence reported to the House