Employment Rights Bill (Twenty First sitting)

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: † Sir Christopher Chope, Graham Stringer, Valerie Vaz, David Mundell

Bedford, Mr Peter (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)

† Darling, Steve (Torbay) (LD)

† Fox, Sir Ashley (Bridgwater) (Con)

Gibson, Sarah (Chippenham) (LD)

† Gill, Preet Kaur (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)

† Griffith, Dame Nia (Minister for Equalities)

† Hume, Alison (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)

† Kumaran, Uma (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)

† Law, Chris (Dundee Central) (SNP)

† McIntyre, Alex (Gloucester) (Lab)

† McMorrin, Anna (Cardiff North) (Lab)

† Madders, Justin (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade)

Midgley, Anneliese (Knowsley) (Lab)

† Murray, Chris (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)

† Pearce, Jon (High Peak) (Lab)

† Smith, Greg (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)

† Tidball, Dr Marie (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)

† Timothy, Nick (West Suffolk) (Con)

† Turner, Laurence (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)

† Wheeler, Michael (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)

Kevin Maddison, Harriet Deane, Aaron Kulakiewicz, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

[Sir Christopher Chope in the Chair]

Employment Rights Bill

New Clause 34

Special constables: right to time off for public duties

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

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

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

(1B) In section (1A), “duties” means any activity under the direction of a chief office of police.’”—(Sir Ashley Fox.)

11:30:00

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Good morning, Sir Christopher. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I am pleased to move the new clause, which would add special constables to the scope of section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, giving them the right to unpaid leave to perform their duties. Special constables are volunteers. They give their time, at no cost to the taxpayer, to help our police forces. Specials have existed in some form ever since the Special Constables Act 1831, which allowed justices of the peace to conscript volunteers. The special constabulary as we know it was established by the Police Act 1964, which gave chief constables the authority to appoint and manage special constables. Today’s specials carry all the same legal powers as their full-time counterparts, on and off duty. They put themselves in harm’s way, without payment, to keep our society safe. I tabled the new clause because my constituent, Ms Emma-Elizabeth Murphy, asked me to do so. She came to see me at one of my first constituency surgeries and asked me to help her and her fellow special constables. Ms Murphy joined up as a special in 2021 and took the oath as a constable. Since then, she has recorded more than 1,300 hours of duties, arrested multiple offenders and dealt with fatal accidents. Last year, she was recognised as student special constable of the year. Ms Murphy explained that she and many of her colleagues use their weekends and holidays to perform their duties. They may ask their employers for unpaid leave, but 60% of employers who were surveyed do not grant it. Bringing specials within the scope of section 50 would mean that their employer had to consider the request officially and grant a reasonable amount of unpaid leave. That would put them in the same position as councillors and magistrates. The number of people who volunteer as a special has fallen by two thirds over the past decade. Many forces now face significant gaps in their special constabulary ranks. Applications have slowed significantly, with most special constables joining purely as a stepping stone into the regular force. The two-year attrition rate of the force is 90%. That means that the constabulary does not see a good return on the time and training that it invests in new recruits.

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under you, Sir Christopher. I draw Members’ attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—and the GMB. The hon. Member for Bridgwater is making a powerful case. Were the Government to accept his new clause, would he support the Bill as a whole?

That would not be quite enough to offset the £5 billion-worth of costs for small and medium-sized enterprises. The advantage of the new clause is that it would not cost either the taxpayer or employers any money. However, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. The truth is that, currently, many people simply do not have the time to offer to the role without employer support. The measure I propose would make it easier for specials to perform their duties and, I hope, help recruitment. Unlike so many of the proposals in the Bill, it would not cost either employers or the taxpayer any money. I am pleased that this campaign has the support of the Association of Special Constabulary Officers and more than a dozen MPs from Government and Opposition. We also have the endorsement of 10 police and crime commissioners. Importantly, Assistant Chief Constable Bill Dutton, acting in his capacity as the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for the special constabulary, has provided his written support for including special constables under section 50. The Minister has received letters from hon. Members in all parts of the House, and I believe that some of his ministerial colleagues, too, may have received letters or held meetings with Government Back Benchers. The new clause could help with the recruitment and retention of many new special constables and it would make our streets safer. It would also finally recognise the work of the specials and put them on the same footing as the thousands of other people in this country who are allowed time off work to complete valuable civic duties. I ask the Minister to consider that.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I would like to add my support to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater has proposed. The first duty of Government is to protect citizens from threats abroad and keep them safe at home. Given all the other rights and extensions of rights that the Government are pushing in the Bill, it would seem unusual if support for our special constables, whom I salute for all their hard work day in, day out as part of the mission to keep the British people safe, were not included. I urge the Minister to consider the new clause in a genuine spirit of trying to work together on this issue. I am tempted to rise to the bait set by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles. We have many differences of opinion about the Bill’s provisions, but, in the spirit of the Bill, surely we can find some cross-party consensus on extending employment rights to special constables going about their duty—the often dangerous duty that they carry out on behalf of us all.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I rise to strongly support the new clause. We have seen throughout our debates in Committee that there are opportunities for changing the weather around our employment world, whether it is around foster carers, adoption or volunteering—the subject of new clause 38, championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster), which we will discuss later. I hope that this new clause falls on fertile ground because, as the hon. Member for Bridgwater has highlighted, volunteering across the piece has significantly reduced. We need to change the weather around the employment world and make sure that people feel able and confident to volunteer, as we know that policing is a particular challenge. I welcome the Government’s plans to invest in neighbourhood policing. Special officers are often involved in that. People feel confident when they see a uniformed officer on the street. The public do not care whether it is a paid officer or a special officer; it is a trusted individual. The more we can drive that agenda, as I know from my residents in Torbay, the more it will be welcomed. I look forward to a strong endorsement from the Minister.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Sir Christopher. I start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater on the new clause and join him in paying tribute to his constituent Emma-Elizabeth Murphy and all special constables who perform the vital work that Members have spoken in support of. We recognise and value the vital role that special constables play, which includes supporting neighbourhood policing. We are committed to ensuring that police forces have the support that they need from the Government to tackle important matters of public safety. Special constables, along with the full range of police volunteers, bring valuable and diverse skills that complement the roles that officers and staff play in delivering the best service to the public. We recognise that there has been a fall in the number of special constables over recent years. Further work needs to be done to understand exactly the reasons for that. Initial consideration suggests that a range of factors has led to the reduction in the number of special constables. It is not clear whether the new clause would reverse that trend or what its impact on business would be—the hon. Member for Bridgwater has been a constant critic of the Bill’s impact on businesses—so we need to understand that better. We are already doing a range of work to support special constables and employment rights more broadly. We are introducing the neighbourhood policing guarantee, which will put thousands of additional police officers, police community support officers and special constables on our streets and restore patrols in town centres across the country. Many employers already support their employees to volunteer in a special constabulary. Under the Employer Supported Policing scheme, led by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, a number of organisations across a range of sectors have committed to supporting members of their workforce to serve as special constables, in recognition of the opportunities to build new skills and support local communities. The Home Office is also supporting the NPCC to develop and implement initiatives to improve the recruitment and retention of special constables. That includes developing a refreshed national citizens in policing strategy and a national special constabulary working group. I will not be able to accept the new clause, but I am sympathetic to the case that has been made. In preparation for dealing with it, I learned that that the initial legislation that introduced time off for certain public duties is now 50 years old, so it seems time to consider this issue in the round, and the role of special constables will no doubt be included in that. The Home Office will clearly have an important say. As I said, a number of factors has led to the decline in the number of special constables in recent years.

The new clause has been tabled for some weeks now. Has the Minister engaged with the Home Secretary, the Policing Minister or any officials in the Home Office? Have they presented a view on this proposal yet?

We have had various discussions within the Department. Information has gone over to the Home Office, and we are waiting for a response. Obviously, I cannot speak for the Home Office, so I cannot set out its position. As I say, I think it is time more generally to consider all the legislation relating to the right to time off for public duties. It is too soon to accept this new clause, but I hope the hon. Member for Bridgwater is assured that we are taking this issue seriously and considering it.

Although I am disappointed that the Minister has not accepted the new clause, I will withdraw it at this stage. I can count 10 Government Members and only five on the Opposition Benches, so my chances of success in a Division would be limited. I hope the new clause can find its way back into the Bill, perhaps in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 35 Carer’s leave: remuneration “(1) In section 80K of the Employment Rights Act 1996, omit subsection (3) and insert— ‘(3) In subsection (1)(a), “terms and conditions of employment”— (a) includes matters connected with an employee’s employment whether or not they arise under the contract of employment, and (b) includes terms and conditions about remuneration.’”—(Steve Darling.) This new clause would make Carer’s Leave a paid entitlement. Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause is an opportunity to extend carer’s leave across the whole of Great Britain. I hope it falls on more fertile ground than the previous new clause. There are 10.6 million carers across the United Kingdom, yet only 2.5 million are actually in paid employment. That shows that, although some of those carers may be beyond or even below working age, there is still a significant untapped pool of opportunity to drive productivity in our economy. The economic growth figures released this morning show that the handbrake is sadly still on in our economy due to the appalling state that the Labour party inherited from the previous Government, so we need to think about how to allow people to work in our economy as strongly as possible. Centrica has found that there is an £8 billion cost to our economy for those who choose to leave the workplace due to having caring commitments. This would potentially allow a goodly number of those to remain in the workplace and continue to contribute. Although this is a probing amendment, I hope the Minister will give it some serious consideration and advise the Committee on what exploration the Government may choose to undertake of this golden opportunity for us as a society.

11:45:00

I commend the hon. Member for Torbay for tabling new clause 35. It is not the Opposition’s intention to support it at this stage, but I want to be clear that the principle behind it is fundamentally good: ensuring carers are not left on a financial sticky wicket, which is a very real problem in the country. I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Torbay said that it was a probing amendment, but we believe that it is not currently fully thought through. We can all agree—I would be surprised if we did not—on saluting the incredible work that carers do up and down the land. They are all heroes in their own right and they do incredible work to look after those they care for. Their work merits a genuine use of the word “amazing”. It is a word that has been applied to far too many things in this world that are not amazing, but I think we can all agree that the work carers do genuinely is amazing. Our rationale for saying that this new clause is not thought through enough is that it does not produce realistic solutions to solving the financial gap for carers, which we acknowledge exists. I would be interested to know the rates of payment the Liberal Democrats think would be appropriate for carer’s leave, how the rates they envisage have been benchmarked, and if they have understood the likelihood of take-up of carer’s leave and therefore the ability of employers to absorb this cost. The hon. Gentleman was very clear about that 10.6 million figure he gave. Any solution that seeks to close the financial gap must accept some of the realities and take on board the costings that will have to come from somewhere to ensure that that financial burden can be met, notwithstanding the acceptance that carers need more support for—I repeat—their amazing work. That is why we believe this new clause just does not work at this time, and I would be surprised if our position were that different from the Government’s.

I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular my membership of the National Education Union and USDAW. New clause 35 would commit the Government to introducing an entitlement for employees with caring responsibilities, to be paid at their usual wage level, while taking carer’s leave. It would give carers an entitlement of up to a week of paid leave and require employers to cover the cost. I want to underline that the Government are absolutely committed to supporting employed unpaid carers. In the October 2024 Budget, we increased the earnings disregard for carers from £151 to £196, meaning that they can earn up to £196 without losing any of their carer’s allowance. In effect, that means that they can work 16 hours a week at the national living wage. We have two concerns about the new clause. First, it would introduce significant new costs for employers without giving consideration to the potential impact on businesses, in particular small ones. Secondly, under the proposed approach, individuals taking carer’s leave would be treated more favourably than employees taking other forms of leave to care for family members, such as maternity or paternity leave, where a flat statutory rate is available. There is no clear rationale for taking a different approach, and it could raise questions about differential treatment of different groups. For those reasons, the Government do not support the new clause. However, supporting carers who want to work alongside managing their caring responsibilities is an important element of our plans to modernise the world of work, which will ensure that there are good jobs for carers and a skilled workforce for employers. The Carer’s Leave Act 2023 gave employed carers a new right to time off work to care for a dependant with long-term care needs. We will review that measure and consider whether any further support is required. That will include looking at potential options for paid leave. The review will draw on evidence from carers and employers and learn from their experiences, so that we can understand what is working in the current system and identify where improvements may be needed. Through that work, we will also engage closely with smaller employers and sector bodies to ensure that we fully understand the potential impacts and benefits that further policy development could bring for them. It is right that we allow the review to run its course to enable an evidence-based decision on whether there is more we can do to support working carers while balancing impacts on businesses. I heard what the hon. Member for Torbay said about the new clause being a probing amendment, and I hope that what I have said gives him reassurance about our commitment to that review. I therefore invite him to withdraw the new clause.

I thank the Minister for her encouraging words. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 37 Right to be accompanied “(1) Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (right to be accompanied) is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (3), after paragraph (b) insert— ‘(ba) a person who has been reasonably certified in writing by a Professional Body as having experience of, or as having received training in, acting as a worker’s companion at disciplinary or grievance hearings, or’ (3) After subsection (7) insert— ‘(8) In this section, “Professional Body” means any organisation, which is authorised by a regulation made by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (9). (9) The Secretary of State may make a regulation or regulations authorising any organisation as a Professional Body for the purposes of this section.’”—(Steve Darling.) This new clause would expand the right to be accompanied by a certified companion at disciplinary and grievance hearings. Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would ensure that workers in the early stages of an employment dispute, such as a disciplinary or grievance hearing, can be supported by those who are qualified, rather than just by trade union representatives or similar colleagues. It would allow for matters to be brought to a head much sooner and prevent cases from necessarily going to tribunal, which clogs up the tribunal system. I hope the Government will take the new clause in the positive sprit in which we tabled it.

I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Torbay said. On one level, I would be interested to know why the Liberal Democrats think the expansion is needed, where the shortfalls are in the current right to be accompanied, and what benefits the new right would bring. I think that what the hon. Gentleman is proposing could be done through existing legislation in many respects. That said, representatives of the charity and third sector who seek to represent those in the teaching profession have welcomed the new clause, because the teaching unions have a bit of a monopoly at the moment. Although my mother has been retired for many years, she always joined a union through considerably gritted teeth—she may have been the only Conservative in the staff room, but she gritted her teeth. In fact, she may even have taught for many years in the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield. The teaching unions have that monopoly because of the insurances and so on that they give to teachers. The new clause would widen things out and allow teachers who do not wish to join a union to get the support they need—accompaniment at a hearing—from a charity or third sector organisation, which may be welcome. We need more clarity on the impact that would have on the teaching profession, which is why we do not think the new clause should be accepted at this time. However, the hon. Member for Torbay has opened the door on an area that it is important for us to explore as the Bill proceeds, and perhaps in future legislation.

I thank the hon. Member for Torbay for tabling the new clause. I think its origins are in written evidence to the Committee from the edu-legal organisation Edapt, which has been raising this issue with successive Governments for a number of years. It is important to set out the position under current law. Section 10(3) of the Employment Relations Act 1999 explains that when a worker is asked to attend a disciplinary or grievance hearing they are entitled to bring a companion who is either a fellow worker, an official employed by a trade union, or a workplace trade union representative that the union has reasonably certified as having received training in acting as a worker’s companion at such hearings. Employers are free but not obliged to allow workers to be accompanied by someone who does not fall into those categories. Some workers may have a contractual right to be accompanied by persons other than those listed, such as a professional support body, partner, spouse or legal representative. As one of the initial steps in resolving tensions when the worker-employer relationship has broken down, the provisions of the 1999 Act seek to keep disciplinary and grievance procedures internal to a workplace. Expanding the types of organisations that can be involved in representing workers could lead to hearings requiring legal representation for both worker and employer. We certainly do not want to see internal disciplinary or grievance hearings ending up in a legal battle. That would invariably increase the cost of holding a hearing and potentially decrease the chances of an amicable resolution. Equally, introducing increased legal expertise from outside the workplace could increase the likelihood of a tribunal. Workers and employers may judge ACAS conciliation or mediation unlikely to resolve a dispute because legal arguments have been made during an internal disciplinary hearing. We certainly believe that amicable resolutions are the swiftest way for justice to be delivered. The new clause would give the Secretary of State the power to set out and define in regulations the professional bodies that could represent employees in disciplinary and grievance hearings. Although, as the shadow Minister said, this measure relates specifically to the education sector, one can easily see a whole range of organisations beginning to knock on the door. It would raise all sorts of questions about regulations, standards and enforcement, and it would inevitably expand quite quickly. As the shadow Minister said, it is not clear beyond the written submission to the Committee where the demand is for the expansion of this right. Employers are of course entitled to nominate individuals or organisations for recognition. The Government are clear that trade unions are best placed to provide workplace representation. The legislation is fit for purpose in terms of ensuring that that is done in a proportionate and balanced way. On that basis, we reject the new clause.

Although I am disappointed that the new clause has fallen on stony ground, it was only a probing amendment, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 38 Time off for volunteering: consultation “(1) The Secretary of State must consult on the introduction of a requirement for employers with more than 250 employees to grant employees time off for volunteering. (2) The consultation must consider, amongst other things, the following matters— (a) the amount of time off an employer must grant; (b) when the time off may be taken; (c) any conditions to which the granting of time off may be subject; and (d) the definition of ‘volunteering’. (3) The consultation must be conducted within one year of this Act being passed. (4) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the consultation closing, publish and lay before Parliament the Secretary of State’s response to the consultation.”—(Steve Darling.) This new clause calls for a consultation on allowing employees at companies of over 250 people the opportunity to take time off in order to undertake voluntary work. Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause relates to volunteering and giving leave to volunteers. It would require a consultation, so I hope that the Government will grasp it with both hands. It feels like their modus operandi on the Bill is for a vast majority of it to go out to further consultation, so what harm would there be in another small consultation on volunteering?

00:00:00

We have already heard from the hon. Member for Bridgwater about the reduction in people volunteering for the special constabulary. That is no different from other areas in the post-covid world; as I am sure many Members on both sides of the Committee will have experienced, there has sadly been a decline in volunteering.

An area that I have been involved with, with great pleasure, is the Beavers. Many of us will have been lobbied by the Scouting movement. In my constituency, we have been told by the national organisation that there are thousands of youngsters who want to participate in the Scouting movement, yet they cannot because there is a lack of volunteers. That is just one small example of the many volunteering opportunities that could be unlocked by allowing volunteering leave through the Bill.

The new clause would not set things in stone. We are saying, “Let’s go and consult.” There is a real opportunity here. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, who helped to propose this measure; it is his brainchild. I think it is a real golden opportunity, and I am sure the Minister will grasp it with both hands and get it over the line for us. I will be pressing the new clause to a vote.

I heard very clearly what the hon. Member for Torbay proposed on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I think we all salute everybody who volunteers. We can all celebrate people who give up their time freely to do something worthy in our constituencies, communities and neighbourhoods—including the Scout and Girlguiding groups that the hon. Gentleman spoke of. It is clear from the passion with which the hon. Gentleman spoke that the Liberal Democrats are still pining for the coalition days, when the big society was the centrepiece of the vision that the Prime Minister—now my right hon. Friend the noble Lord Cameron—had for this country. On one level, I had thought that one of the greatest successes of the coalition Government was—until the 2024 general election—the electoral annihilation of the Liberal Democrats, but they are still pining for many of the things that my party and theirs did together in that coalition period. In theory, the new clause is actually very appealing; we all want to support people to do good and give their time freely in their communities, neighbourhoods and areas—in our constituencies. But where I take issue with the hon. Gentleman is that, time and again in this Committee, too much has been left to yet another consultation. While I hear his argument, “What harm would another one do?”, I think we are consultationed out at the moment. I do not think it would be helpful either for the Government, in achieving what they wish to achieve through this very wide-reaching piece of legislation—albeit with disagreement from the Opposition Benches—or for employers to have to take on yet another strand of burden in this regard, so the Opposition will not be supporting new clause 38. However, we do want to explore ways in which volunteering can be more greatly encouraged in all of our communities. As a starting point, although consideration of the definition of volunteering would be included as part of the hon. Gentleman’s proposed consultation, we need a better definition before we consider any wider consultation on time off and so on. At the moment, it is far too wide-open a goal and too broad a word. If we asked everybody in the country to give their definition of volunteering, we would probably get 70 million different answers. If we had greater clarity about what we are really talking about—for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater’s very clear and defined proposal on special constables, which of course is an incredibly worthwhile and nation-enhancing bit of volunteering—then we could potentially get somewhere, but at the moment, volunteering could mean literally anything to anyone. That is not to undermine the good work that people do day in, day out across our country, but we need greater clarity.

Let us start where we can all agree: volunteering is a very important part of our society and we want to do everything we can to encourage it. It is a central part of civic life and has a positive impact on our society, and we all pay tribute to the volunteers in our communities. There are large employers that have impact days and corporate social responsibility days where they come into the community—there are a number of examples in my constituency where that has happened. Larger employers, in particular, have been able to pool their resources and have a real benefit in their communities. However, as the shadow Minister outlined, the Government will be undertaking a significant number of consultations, and we do not wish to add to that at this stage. We want to focus on the priorities in our “Make Work Pay” agenda. In particular, we want to see how the enhanced right to flexible working will benefit people’s ability to volunteer. We believe that when we implement the new rights to flexible working in the earlier parts of the Bill, they will enable employees to access flexible working requests in order to fit in their volunteering, and that further legislation is not necessary at this time. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is delivering the Know Your Neighbourhood fund, which has a key focus to ensure that learning is shared “on how people in disadvantaged areas can be supported to volunteer and improve their social connections”. So there is work going on in Government, and a recognition that volunteering is an important part of the fabric of our society, but, as has been indicated, we do not wish to undertake additional consultations at this point.

I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that we are looking at employers that employ over 250 individuals, so the new clause would far from impact smaller businesses. I have grave concerns that the Government believe they have all the time in the world and expect that there will be a second glorious term for the Labour party, come hell or high water. The jury is out on whether a second term for Keir will appear. One is better driving the agenda forward while one has the helm than to hope for the helm when it turns the next headland. I encourage the Government to reflect on their proposals and grasp the opportunity to consult on this volunteering opportunity. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

11|0|2|13|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

New Clause 42

Duty on the Certification Officer to report on the impact of a four-day week

“(1) The Certification Officer must, within twelve months of the passing of this Act, lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the economic and financial impact of introducing a four-day week.

(2) The report laid under subsection (1) must include analysis on individual sectors of the UK economy including—

(a) the retail and wholesale industry;

(b) the manufacturing industry;

(c) the finance and insurance industry;

(d) the health and social care industry;

(e) the construction industry;

(f) the education industry;

(g) the public sector and defence industry;

(h) the transport and storage industry;

(i) the arts and recreation industry; and

(j) the agriculture, mining and fishing industry.

(3) The Certification Officer must consult the following before any report is laid—

(a) business owners;

(b) workers;

(c) consumers;

(d) such other persons as the Certification Officer considers relevant to their report.

(4) Any submissions made by consultees under subsection (3) must be published alongside the report laid under subsection (1).”—(Greg Smith.)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would require the Certification Officer to publish a report on the impact on various sectors of the economy of introducing a four-day week. The Certification Officer is responsible for ensuring that trade unions carry out their statutory duties, and it is important that it is aware of the impacts of this policy, which various elements of the labour movement and the trade union movement have supported. We have seen just how effective the four-day week has been where it has been tried. Let us take the example of South Cambridgeshire district council, which introduced it for its workers in 2023. The Mail reported last week that one in six staff have a second job during their day off. That is despite the council’s website stating that the time off is to allow workers to “recover and re-energise” for the “more intense” four-day week. It is full-time pay for part-time work, and then some. It would be extremely helpful for all concerned if we had a little more transparent information about the effects the four-day week might have on the economy as a whole if introduced more widely. That is why we have tabled new clause 42, which would require the Certification Officer, within 12 months of Royal Assent, to lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the economic and financial impact of introducing a four-day week. The report would be required to cover the retail and wholesale industry; the manufacturing industry; the finance and insurance industry; the health and social care industry; the construction industry; the education industry; the public sector and defence industry; the transport and storage industry; the arts and recreation industry; and agriculture, mining and fishing. To ensure that the report is balanced, the Certification Officer must consult business owners, workers and consumers, although that, of course, is not an exhaustive list. For full transparency, we would like to make sure that any submissions that are received are published, preferably in a way that can be questioned in this House. The new clause aims to introduce a “look before you leap” ethos into the Government’s policymaking. Given the state of the Bill, I would argue that that is very much needed.

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire has had a road to Damascus moment on the need for further consultation on the Bill. I am delighted that the Conservatives believe that consultation is a good thing, unlike my Conservative council colleagues in Torbay. I look forward to the Minister looking kindly on the new clause, which shows that the Conservatives believe in consultation. I would ask that he please grasp this opportunity.

It seems the coalition era love-in has started again in earnest. As the shadow Minister outlined, new clause 42 would require the Certification Officer to lay before both Houses, within 12 months of Royal Assent, a report setting out the impact on various sectors of the UK economy of introducing a four-day week. It would require the Certification Officer to consult businesses, workers, consumers and others and to publish consultation responses when laying the report. Just when we thought we had got away from consultation, we have another one. In considering the new clause, it might be helpful to set out the role of the Certification Officer. It has been the regulator of trade unions and employer associations since 1975. It not only carries out regulatory functions, but has administrative, supervisory and significant quasi-judicial functions. It adjudicates on complaints raised by trade union members and other parties. As part of our repeal of the provisions of the Trade Union Act 2016, we will remove the Certification Officer’s enhanced investigatory and enforcement powers, as well as the levy imposed on trade unions and employer associations. As such, we will return the role of the Certification Officer to what it was before that Act.

12:15:00

The primary role of the Certification Officer is to ensure that unions and employer associations adhere to the statutory requirements for their finances and governance that Parliament has decided those organisations are required to observe. Its statutory functions are to maintain lists of trade unions and employer associations; to determine complaints by union members against their unions relating to alleged breaches of statutory duties and some types of union rules; to determine union independence; to ensure that annual returns are made; to supervise mergers, political fund ballots and members’ superannuation schemes; and to investigate alleged financial irregularities and breaches in relation to trade union membership records. It therefore has no locus in relation to industrial action or making economic assessments of how unions and employer associations, through their actions, impact on the economy. It employs no economists or statisticians and is therefore not an appropriate body for such consultation or report preparation. It does not have the expertise or statutory functions to carry out such a consultation or report.

As should be clear, no plans are included in the Bill to mandate a four-day week for five days’ pay. Compressed hours already exist in some workplaces, but that does not always mean working fewer hours. Businesses can refuse a request if it does not suit their needs. Therefore, any assessment of a four-day week is unnecessary, and I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the new clause.

I listened carefully to the Minister’s response. The four-day week is subject to much media interest at the moment, and it is important that we keep a close eye on moves to shorten the working week, given the impact it would have on productivity and growth in our economy going forward. For the time being, I am happy not to press the new clause, but the Opposition are concerned, and we will keep an incredibly close eye on the issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 46 Adoption pay: self-employed persons “(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations enable statutory adoption pay to be payable to persons who are— (a) self-employed, or (b) contractors. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the meaning of ‘self-employed’ and ‘contractors’ shall be set out in regulations under this section.”—(Steve Darling.) This new clause extends statutory adoption pay to the self-employed and contractors. Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would extend statutory adoption pay to those who are self-employed or contractors. I must declare something of an interest, although I do not formally need to, because I am adopted myself, and this issue is extremely close to my heart. When I was leader of the Torbay unitary council, we went from “failing” to “good” for our children’s services within two years. That is probably the biggest achievement of my life. Again, it was something I was driven on because I am adopted. In the ’70s, I was very fortunate to be adopted by Eric and Penny. Eric was not a toolmaker, but he was a lorry driver, and would potentially have benefited had there been an opportunity such as the one I have outlined in the new clause. I encourage colleagues to step back slightly and to reflect on the challenges in social care, and particularly children’s social care, and on the heavy costs—I am sure colleagues are only too aware of them—to local authorities, which have a responsibility for children’s services. For those kids who need support, the best people are foster carers or those who adopt. When there is a lack of such people—when there is not that capacity—kids might have to be picked up by the private sector, and hard-pressed local authorities often have to pay through the nose for that. The new clause is about changing the weather again around support for youngsters in need. By extending statutory adoption pay to those who are self-employed or contractors, we would enhance the pool of those who can participate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for her help with the new clause. Earlier this week, she led a worthwhile debate on this issue, and I acknowledge the positive feedback the Minister in that debate gave on the proposals. I look forward to hearing from this Minister how the Government could take the proposals in this probing amendment forward.

I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Torbay. The issues he raises are worthy of debate, but as he said this is a probing amendment, so these are matters for a future occasion.

I thank the hon. Member for Torbay for tabling new clause 46. I start by expressing my appreciation for all adoptive parents, who offer loving and stable homes to children who are unable to live with their birth parents. This Government are committed to ensuring that all working parents receive the best possible support to balance their work and family lives. New clause 46 calls for eligibility for statutory adoption pay to be extended to individuals who are self-employed or contractors. It would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations within six months of the passage of the Bill to enable self-employed individuals and contractors who adopt to receive statutory adoption pay. The proposed regulations would also define the terms “self-employed” and “contractors” to ensure that we have a shared understanding of who would qualify for statutory adoption pay under this extended eligibility. At present, parental leave and pay entitlements are generally not available to the self-employed. That is because the parental leave system is focused on supporting employed parents, who need specific rights and protections to take time off work. Self-employed people are generally considered to have more flexibility and autonomy, and not to need those same protections. There is, of course, the exception of maternity allowance, which is available to self-employed mothers to ensure that they can take time off work following childbirth to recover and establish breastfeeding, if they wish to do so. That is an important health and safety provision. None the less, the Government are committed to supporting parents to balance their work and family responsibilities and keen to hear how the system can be improved. While adoptive parents who are self-employed or contractors do not qualify for statutory adoption pay, statutory adoption guidance advises local authorities to consider making a payment similar to maternity allowance for those parents. In November 2024, the Government published “Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive,” which sets out our vision for children’s social care. As part of that vision, the Government have allocated £49 million to the adoption and special guardianship support fund for this financial year. The fund enables local authorities and regional adoption agencies to offer a wide range of tailored support, including psychotherapy, family therapy and creative therapies to children who are adopted and their families. These services are available to all adoptive families following a locally conducted assessment of the family’s needs. Depending on individual circumstances, additional financial support—for example, universal credit and child benefit—may also be available to contractors or self-employed people who adopt. We have committed to a review of the parental leave system to ensure that it best supports all working families. The review will be conducted separately to the Employment Rights Bill, and work is already under way on planning its delivery. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member for Torbay to withdraw his proposed new clause.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 51 Access to employment rights: workers on temporary visas “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act being passed, commission an independent report on the extent to which workers on temporary visas are able to assert their rights under employment law. (2) In commissioning the report, the Secretary of State must arrange for the report to meet the requirements set out in subsections (2) to (4). (3) The report must examine the extent to which workers on temporary visas feel unable to assert their employment rights because they are dependent on their employers to sponsor their visas. (4) The report must make recommendations to the Secretary of State about how the Secretary of State can support workers on temporary visas in the assertion of their employment rights. (5) The report must be completed within three months of being commissioned. (6) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is practicable after receipt of the report, publish the report and lay it before both Houses of Parliament. (7) The Secretary of State must, within three months of receipt of the report— (a) respond to the recommendations in the report, and (b) publish the response and lay it before both Houses of Parliament.”—(Chris Law.) Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I believe this is the last of the new clauses to the Bill. It is imperative that employment rights are universal. Everyone should have access to them, regardless of their circumstances. That cannot just be theoretical; it needs to be applied in practice too. Although the Bill increases workers’ rights for many people, which I fully support, it will make no difference to their realities if they do not have the ability to access those rights or to seek redress when they are breached. To make the Bill as worth while and effective as it can be, we must take every possible action to strengthen it and to ensure that no one is denied their rights. We must do our utmost to prevent scenarios in which denial of employment rights and exploitation can exist. I have therefore tabled this new clause on access to employment rights for workers on temporary visas. I know that most of us in this room will have had constituents on those visas who have been exploited. If we accept the new clause, it will compel the Secretary of State, within six months of the Bill being passed, to commission an independent report on the extent to which workers on temporary visas are able to assert their rights under employment law. Workers on temporary visas consistently report that they are unable to assert the basic rights derived from being a worker in the UK. Why is that? Because they are dependent on their employer for not only their job but their ability to live in this country. More often than not, they do not have the same safety nets that others benefit from. For people in that situation, the stakes are simply so much higher. We know that migrant workers, who often incur large debts to migrate to the UK to work—to address labour shortages—simply cannot afford to report abuse, if doing so risks their jobs and visas. They are justifiably fearful that their employer, who sponsors their visa, will punish them and that they will be left without redress. Time and again, we see cases of workers who face unsafe conditions—including in my constituency and, I am sure, in those of everyone in this room. Whether it is underpayment or sexual harassment, they do not feel able to do anything about it, for fear of deportation. That lets exploitation run rife. By not addressing this issue, we are allowing a huge blind spot in the UK’s employment rights framework to continue unchecked. Until the Government address temporary and restrictive visas, the gap between workers only widens, entrenching the UK’s tiered workforce and leaving migrant workers behind. That is simply unacceptable. Restrictive visas have created a tiered workforce, where migrant workers face significant barriers to enforcing their rights, driving a race to the bottom in pay and conditions across the UK labour market. Such visas often limit the sectors in which workers are permitted to work or the employers for which they can work. Workers’ immigration sponsors may also be their employers or responsible for placing them in employment. This results in a vicious cycle, in which migrant workers are doubly punished for speaking out, first by unscrupulous employers and then by immigration enforcement, with a resulting loss of work, income and immigration status. That has allowed a proliferation of abuses, from non-payment of wages to overwork and sexual assault, among a litany of other labour and criminal law violations. It is important to recognise that workers’ experiences of exploitation can vary, but all these instances need addressed. At one end of the scale, there is decent, well-paid work, with bad practices such as breaches of employment rights culminating, at the opposite end, in severe labour exploitation, such as human trafficking and forced labour. Where minor breaches of rights occur and are not sufficiently addressed, it increases the risk of more severe exploitation further along, as well as driving down workplace standards. Surely the new Labour Government find that totally unacceptable? In working on the new clause, I engaged with Focus on Labour Exploitation—I have a briefing from it here, which I am happy to share with the Minister. FLEX is a research and policy organisation working towards an end to labour exploitation, and its recent research and policy work has focused on sectors where workers are known to be at higher risk of exploitation. The new clause, which is intended to be friendly and collaborative, would lead to an investigation into the extent of these issues and how they can be addressed. Any immigration system that does not proactively include mechanisms that enable workers to report exploitation—and ultimately leave an exploitative employer without jeopardising their employment, accommodation and immigration status—inevitably has exploitation baked into its design. To meet its aims, the Employment Rights Bill needs to address that. It is especially important that the use of restrictive or short-term visas is not allowed to prevent improvements in working conditions and pay in certain work sectors by facilitating access to workers who, due to immigration restrictions, are unable to challenge poor working conditions. One option open to the Government to combat that would be to introduce a UK workplace justice visa, drawing on international best practice. Such a visa would provide 12 months of renewable limited leave for those who have visas dependent on their employment and who have experienced labour exploitation or lost their employment and limited leave through no fault of their own. That would ensure that migrants with work visas who experience such issues have a route to remain and settle in the UK, to enable them to leave abusive work situations and, most importantly, to access justice. The new clause does not propose such a visa, but it is one option the Secretary of State should strongly consider as a way of supporting workers on temporary visas in the assertion of their employment rights.

12:30:00

Importantly, and increasingly, other countries have recognised the need to address labour abuse, including abuse below the threshold of modern slavery, and have introduced similar measures. For example, in Australia, recent reforms introduced provisions that prevent visa cancellations where, at first sight, there is evidence of labour abuse. Those reforms also provide for a workplace justice visa, which permits work in any sector while the worker seeks redress. In our closest neighbour, Ireland, non-EU citizens who held a work permit but became undocumented through no fault of their own and who have remained in the country have access to the reactivation employment permit.

It is important to stress that the new clause is about workers accessing the employment rights in the Bill. Examples of restrictive visas that create the risk of exploitation include the overseas domestic worker visa for work in a private household and the seasonal worker visa for work in agriculture. The short-term nature of such visas increases the risk of exploitation, because workers, who often pay large amounts to migrate, know that their best option is not to complain or challenge poor working conditions, but to focus on earning what they can during the short time they are in the UK.

The adult social care sector is already under strain because of the lack of people available to work in it, and workers with a health and social care worker visa are often scared to speak out or seek protection due to their dependence on their employer for that visa. At present, if a sponsor loses their sponsor licence because of exploitative practices or non-compliance with their duties as a sponsor, the health and care worker has only 60 days to find another sponsor, who must be willing and able to sponsor a new visa. That has proved an impossible hurdle for many workers when they and their colleagues have simultaneously lost their employment, so they cannot support themselves and are prohibited from undertaking new employment until they have a new visa. It is an impossible situation.

The high level of dependency on the visa sponsor has contributed to the significant spike in labour exploitation in the adult social care sector. The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority has confirmed that despite policy changes, demand for support has remained consistent. In that context, we have seen instances of workers experiencing significant abuse, from labour violations to, dare I say it, rape, as they feel too disempowered to ask the authorities for protection. The dependency created by sponsorship also creates a barrier to the workers’ ability to join a trade union or to engage in collective action to advocate for better conditions, out of the fear that they will be victimised for trade union activity and that they will lose not only their job but their immigration status as a result.

I am sure that the Secretary of State fully supports everyone having the protection of employment rights. This new clause does not ask for much: it simply states that the Government must commission a report. I urge the Minister to consider that to ensure that migrant workers on temporary visas are explicitly taken into consideration in the Bill, and to ensure that the Government take all measures to protect their rights.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration of interests and my membership of the trade unions Community and Unison. I will note a couple of useful points in response to the important arguments of the hon. Member for Dundee Central about migrant workers and the conditionality of visas. I have worked on migration issues for a long time, so I sympathise with the objectives and the direction that he puts forward. The new clause essentially proposes an investigation or information-gathering exercise. The new Government have commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee, which is a body of experts that is independent of the Government or the Home Office, to look into issues around the conditionality of visas and the different types of worker visa to which he referred. The MAC is doing a lot of important work, and I think it is the appropriate location for that research. I am a member of the Home Affairs Committee, which is also looking into some of the changes that are happening. I reassure the hon. Member that a lot of the work and thinking on this issue is already getting under way. The hon. Member raised some substantive points. First, on seasonal or temporary workers who find themselves at risk of exploitation, he referred to the distinction between those whose immigration status is permanent or secure and those whose status is conditional on their employer. I think the point he is driving at with that distinction goes to the heart of the immigration system overall. We have a system in which conditionalities are applied to visa status, whether that is for someone who has come to do a job, for someone who has applied to do a university course or for someone who is in a relationship. He is driving at a philosophical problem in the immigration system, rather than a technical one. Where employers abuse the system, there are two points to address. First, it is a breach of immigration law and not necessarily of employment law. The hon. Member drew attention to the fact that they lose their sponsorship capacity. When that situation occurs, it is appropriate that we look at it through Home Office immigration regulations. That can be much more effective than trying to crowbar quite a specific point into the UK-wide labour market.

The hon. Member’s last point is an important one. When I approached this area of work to decide whether it fitted this Committee or whether it should be considered in immigration legislation, I took some advice. I appreciate, from a home affairs point of view, that this might not be the place for that point. However, it is the place for talking about it, and that is why the new clause has been accepted by the Clerks for debate today. I appreciate that this might also be an issue for the Home Office, but it is clearly an issue for the Minister in charge of employment rights, because at the end of the day it is not immigration rules that need to be changed. This is about making sure that employment rights are fit for everyone, regardless of whether they are here on a temporary or a permanent visa.

That is a very helpful intervention, because it draws me on to my final point. There is a distinction between what rights there are and what rights are enforced. We have seen from the discussion around the fair work agency and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority that the issue is that rights are not enforced. The good part of this Bill is that it sets up a fair work agency that will look at enforcement. Not supporting the new clause does not mean not recognising the objective that it puts forward. The argument is that this point should and could be dealt with more effectively through other legislative avenues, such as the modern slavery legislation brought in by the previous Government, which they then completely gutted. Looking at how the labour exploitation components of that legislation could be strengthened would deal more effectively with the issues that the hon. Member is raising via his new clause.

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition cannot support new clause 51. The horrible practices outlined by the hon. Member for Dundee Central need to be tackled, but the Bill will already do that. I actually find myself in agreement with parts of what the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh said. There are other routes within immigration law where such things can and should be tackled. No matter how much we disagree with parts of the Bill, if we take the view that the law must apply equally to everybody whether or not they are a British citizen, it is unnecessarily to carve out a particular section of people through new clause 51, when there is other legislation to deal with the abuses that no one on the Committee or in the House wants to see.

Let me start by reaffirming our strong view that every worker has the full right to protection under the laws of this country. That includes migrant workers, as is clear from our plan to make work pay, which recognises that particularly vulnerable sectors are open to abuse from unscrupulous employers. The immigration framework is an important part of ensuring that those who come to this country under visas and sponsorship are protected and that modern slavery abuse is tackled. Sponsorship is a privilege that comes with certain responsibilities for sponsors to ensure that they adhere to employment rights in the United Kingdom. They must have full responsibility for the work that workers are conducting, and in all cases they must ensure that those they sponsor are paid appropriately and that they act in compliance with relevant legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh says, a lot of work is ongoing in this area, particularly from the Home Office, which recently announced that it would ban from future sponsorship any business found guilty of serious employment law breaches, including failing to pay the national minimum wage. We are committed to strengthening the enforcement of rights more broadly through the fair work agency. The Committee has heard plenty of evidence that the current system of enforcement is fragmented. Unfortunately, as we know, that often means that not everyone gets the protection that they should have. One of the essential functions of the new fair work agency will be to produce a strategy setting out its assessment of the scale and nature of non-compliance with labour market rules. This is to ensure that the risks of abuse across all sectors and groups of workers are properly understood and captured. In producing the strategy, the fair work agency will need to consult with an advisory board made up of trade unions, business and independent experts. That will ensure that we get a broad view of the gaps and risks in the labour market. The hon. Member for Dundee Central suggests that this area is a blind spot for the Government. I can assure him that it is not. I have had conversations with the Director of Labour Market Enforcement about the issue, and plenty of work is under way at the Home Office. The hon. Member need only consider the Low Pay Commission’s report to see that the issue is clearly on our radar. An additional report would not add anything to the work that is already under way. I therefore ask him to withdraw his new clause.

I appreciate the comments that have been made in this short debate. Just to be clear, the new clause is about issues that are not currently protected under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and are often under-reported. I welcome the Minister’s comments about the fair work agency and the recent Low Pay Commission report, but I must ask about the timeframe. My suggestion—I will try to work with him on this—is that the timeframe be six months beyond the passing of the Bill, so that we can get decisions made. Perhaps the Secretary of State could let us know what kind of timeframe we are talking about, to give us peace of mind that action will be taken for those who are most vulnerable and have come here from overseas. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Schedule 1 Warrants under Part 5: further provision “Part 1 Application of this Schedule 1 This Schedule applies in relation to— (a) applications for warrants under section (Power to enter dwelling subject to warrant) or 83, and (b) warrants issued under section (Power to enter dwelling subject to warrant) or 83. Part 2 Warrants: applications and safeguards Applications for warrants 2 (1) Where an enforcement officer applies for a warrant, the officer must— (a) state the ground on which the application is made, (b) state the provision of this Act under which the warrant would be issued, (c) specify the premises which it is desired to enter, and (d) identify, so far as is practicable, the purpose for which entry is desired. (2) An application for a warrant must be made without notice and must be supported by an information in writing or, in Scotland, evidence on oath. (3) The officer must answer on oath any question that the justice hearing the application asks the officer. Safeguards in connection with power of entry conferred by warrant 3 A warrant authorises an entry on one occasion only. 4 (1) A warrant must specify— (a) the name of the person who applies for it, (b) the date on which it is issued, (c) the provision of this Act under which it is issued, and (d) the premises to be entered. (2) A warrant must identify, so far as is practicable, the purpose for which entry is desired. 5 (1) Two copies are to be made of a warrant. (2) In the case of a warrant issued in electronic form, the copies must be clearly marked as copies. (3) In the case of a warrant issued otherwise than in electronic form, the copies must be clearly certified as copies. Part 3 Execution of warrants Warrant to be executed within three months 6 Execution of a warrant must be within three months from the date of its issue. Time of entry 7 Execution of a warrant must be at a reasonable time, unless it appears to the officer executing it that there are grounds for suspecting that the purpose of entering the premises may be frustrated if the officer seeks to enter at a reasonable time. Evidence of authority etc 8 (1) Where the occupier of premises to be entered under a warrant is present at the time when an enforcement officer seeks to execute the warrant, the following requirements must be satisfied— (a) the officer must produce to the occupier documentary evidence of the fact that the officer is an enforcement officer; (b) if the officer is asked for it, the occupier must be told the officer’s name; (c) the officer must produce the warrant to the occupier; (d) the officer must supply the occupier with a copy of the warrant that is marked or certified as a copy in accordance with paragraph 5. (2) Where— (a) the occupier of premises to be entered under a warrant is not present when an enforcement officer seeks to execute it, but (b) some other person who appears to the officer to be in charge of the premises is present, sub-paragraph (1) has effect as if any reference to the occupier were a reference to that other person. (3) If there is no person present who appears to the enforcement officer to be in charge of the premises, the officer must leave a copy of the warrant, marked or certified as a copy in accordance with paragraph 5, in a prominent place on the premises. Securing premises after entry 9 An enforcement officer who enters premises under a warrant must take reasonable steps to ensure that when the officer leaves the premises they are as secure as they were before the officer entered. Return and retention of warrants 10 (1) A warrant which— (a) has been executed, or (b) has not been executed within the time authorised for its execution, must be returned to the appropriate person. (2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) the appropriate person is— (a) in the case of a warrant issued in England and Wales, the designated officer for the local justice area in which the justice was acting when the warrant was issued; (b) in the case of a warrant issued in Scotland by a justice of the peace, the clerk of the justice of the peace court in the sheriffdom for which the justice of the peace was appointed; (c) in the case of a warrant issued in Scotland by a sheriff or a summary sheriff, the sheriff clerk; (d) in the case of a warrant issued in Northern Ireland, the clerk of petty sessions. (3) A warrant that is returned under this paragraph must be retained by the person to whom it is returned for a period of 12 months. (4) If during that period the occupier of the premises to which the warrant relates asks to inspect it, the occupier must be allowed to do so.”—(Justin Madders.) This new Schedule makes further provision about applications for, and the execution of, warrants under Part 5. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Schedule 2 Increase in time limits for making claims “Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 1 (1) In regulation 11 of the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 (S.I. 1977/500) (time off for safety representatives), in paragraph (2), for ‘three’, in both places it occurs, substitute ‘six’. (2) In regulation 12 of those Regulations— (a) in paragraph (2), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in paragraph (3), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (c) in paragraph (4), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 2 (1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows. (2) In section 66 (unjustifiable discipline by union), in subsection (2)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (3) In section 68A (unauthorised deduction of union subscriptions), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (4) In section 70C (collective bargaining: obligations relating to training), in subsection (2)— (a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (5) In section 87 (unlawful deduction of contributions to political fund), in subsection (2)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (6) In section 139 (refusal of employment on grounds related to union membership), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (7) In section 145C (inducements), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (8) In section 147 (detriment for trade union activities), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (9) In section 171 (time off for trade union activities), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (10) In section 189 (consultation in collective redundancy), in subsection (5)— (a) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in paragraph (c), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (11) In section 192 (remuneration under protective award), in subsection (2)— (a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (12) In paragraph 157 of Schedule A1 (detriment in relation to trade union recognition), in sub-paragraph (1)(a), for ‘3’ substitute ‘six’. Pension Schemes Act 1993 3 In section 126 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (unpaid pension contributions), in subsection (2), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. Employment Rights Act 1996 4 (1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows. (2) In section 11 (written statements), in subsection (4)— (a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (3) In section 23 (protection of wages)— (a) in subsection (2), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in subsection (4), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (4) In section 27N (information relating to tips etc)— (a) in subsection (2), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in subsection (3), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (5) In section 34 (guarantee payments), in subsection (2)— (a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (6) In section 48 (detriment in employment), in subsection (3)— (a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (7) In section 51 (time off for public duties), in subsection (2)— (a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (8) In section 54 (time off following redundancy), in subsection (2)— (a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (9) In section 57 (time off for ante-natal care), in subsection (2)— (a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (10) In section 57ZC (time off for ante-natal care: agency workers), in subsection (3)— (a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (11) In section 57ZF (time off to accompany to ante-natal appointment), in subsection (2)— (a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (12) In section 57ZH (time off to accompany to ante-natal appointment: agency workers), in subsection (3)— (a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (13) In section 57ZM (time off to attend adoption appointments), in subsection (2)— (a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (14) In section 57ZQ (time off to attend adoption appointments: agency workers), in subsection (3)— (a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (15) In section 57B (time off for dependants), in subsection (2)— (a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (16) In section 60 (time off for pension scheme trustees), in subsection (2)— (a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (17) In section 63 (time off for employee representatives), in subsection (2)— (a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (18) In section 63C (time off for study or training), in subsection (2)— (a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (19) In section 63I (requests in relation to study or training), in subsection (5)— (a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (20) In section 70 (rights following suspension from work)— (a) in subsection (2)— (i) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (ii) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in subsection (5)— (i) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (ii) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (21) In section 70A (rights of agency worker where supply is ended on maternity grounds)— (a) in subsection (2)— (i) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (ii) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in subsection (5)— (i) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (ii) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (22) In section 80 (parental leave), in subsection (2)— (a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (23) In section 80H (right to request flexible working), in subsection (5)— (a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (24) In section 80N (carer’s leave), in subsection (2)— (a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (25) In section 111 (unfair dismissal), in subsection (2)— (a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (26) In section 188 (rights on insolvency of employer), in subsection (2)— (a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 5 (1) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 (S.I. 1996/1513) (time off for representatives of employee safety etc), for ‘three’, in both places it occurs, substitute ‘six’. (2) In paragraph 3A of that Schedule— (a) in sub-paragraph (2), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in sub-paragraph (3), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (c) in sub-paragraph (4), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. Working Time Regulations 1998 6 In regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (S.I. 1998/1833) (rights as to working time), in paragraph (2)— (a) in sub-paragraph (a), for the words from ‘three months’ to ‘six months)’ substitute ‘six months’; (b) in sub-paragraph (b), omit ‘three or, as the case may be,’. National Minimum Wage Act 1998 7 In section 11 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (access to records)— (a) in subsection (3), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in subsection (4), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. Employment Relations Act 1999 8 In section 11 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (right to be accompanied), in subsection (2)— (a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999 9 (1) In regulation 27 of the Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999 (S.I. 1999/3323) (time off for members of a European Works Council etc)— (a) in the heading, for ‘tribunals’ substitute ‘employment tribunals in Great Britain’; (b) in paragraph (1), for the words from ‘complaint,’ to ‘, that’ substitute ‘complaint to an employment tribunal in Great Britain that’; (c) in paragraph (2)— (i) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (ii) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (d) omit paragraph (2B). (2) In the heading of regulation 27A of those Regulations (extension of time limit to facilitate conciliation before institution of proceedings), at the end insert ‘in Great Britain’. (3) After regulation 27A of those Regulations insert— ‘Right to time off: complaints to industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland (1) An employee may present a complaint to an industrial tribunal in Northern Ireland that the employee’s employer– (a) has unreasonably refused to permit the employee to take time off as required by regulation 25; or (b) has failed to pay the whole or any part of any amount to which the employee is entitled under regulation 26. (2) A tribunal shall not consider a complaint under this regulation unless it is presented– (a) before the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which the time off was taken or on which it is alleged the time off should have been permitted; or (b) within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of that period of three months. (3) Regulation 27B (extension of time limit to facilitate conciliation before institution of proceedings in Northern Ireland) applies for the purposes of paragraph (2). (4) Where a tribunal finds a complaint under this regulation well-founded, the tribunal shall make a declaration to that effect. (5) If the complaint is that the employer has unreasonably refused to permit the employee to take time off, the tribunal shall also order the employer to pay to the employee an amount equal to the remuneration to which the employee would have been entitled under regulation 26 if the employer had not refused. (6) If the complaint is that the employer has failed to pay the employee the whole or part of any amount to which the employee is entitled under regulation 26, the tribunal shall also order the employer to pay to the employee the amount which it finds due to the employee.’ (4) In regulation 27B of those Regulations (extension of time limit to facilitate conciliation before institution of proceedings in Northern Ireland)— (a) in paragraph (2), for ‘27(2)(a)’ substitute ‘27AA(2)(a)’; (b) in paragraph (3), for ‘27(2)(a)’ substitute ‘27AA(2)(a)’; (c) in paragraph (4), for ‘27(2)(b)’ substitute ‘27AA(2)(b)’. Merchant Shipping (Working Time: Inland Waterways) Regulations 2003 10 In regulation 18 of the Merchant Shipping (Working Time: Inland Waterways) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/3049) (merchant shipping: rights as to working time), in paragraph (2)— (a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 11 In regulation 18 of the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/756) (civil aviation: rights as to working time), in paragraph (2)— (a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. Fishing Vessels (Working Time: Sea-fishermen) Regulations 2004 12 In regulation 19 of the Fishing Vessels (Working Time: Sea-fishermen) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/1713) (fishing vessels: rights to rest and leave), in paragraph (2)— (a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 13 (1) The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/246) are amended as follows. (2) In regulation 12 (notification of employee liability information), in paragraph (2)— (a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. (3) In regulation 15 (information and consultation requirements), in paragraph (12)— (a) in the words before sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in the words after sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. Cross-border Railway Services (Working Time) Regulations 2008 14 In regulation 17 of the Cross-border Railway Services (Working Time) Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1660) (cross-border railway services: rights as to working time), in paragraph (2)— (a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. European Public Limited-Liability Company (Employee Involvement) (Great Britain) Regulations 2009 15 In regulation 28 of the European Public Limited-Liability Company (Employee Involvement) (Great Britain) Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2009/2401) (time off for members of special negotiating body etc), in paragraph (2)— (a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’; (b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. Agency Workers Regulations 2010 16 In regulation 18 of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/93) (rights of agency workers), in paragraph (4), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’. Equality Act 2010 17 In section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 (discrimination etc at work), in subsection (1)(a), for “3” substitute “6”. Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Hours of Work) Regulations 2018 18 In regulation 26 of the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Hours of Work) Regulations 2018 (S.I. 2018/58) (rights of seafarers to leave), in paragraph (6), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.”—(Justin Madders.) This new Schedule would increase time limits for making claims in employment tribunals (and, in certain cases, industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland) from three months to six months. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Schedule 3 Seafarers’ wages and working conditions “Amendment of Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 1 The Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 (“the Act”) is amended in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 23. Part 1 of the Act: relevant services 2 For the italic heading before section 1 substitute— ‘Part 1 Relevant services’. 3 In section 1 (services to which this Act applies)— (a) for the heading substitute ‘Relevant services’; (b) in subsection (1), for ‘This Act applies to’ substitute ‘In this Act, “relevant service” means’; (c) in subsection (2), for ‘this Act does not apply to’ substitute ‘“relevant service” does not include’; (d) for subsection (4) substitute— ‘(4) In this Act, “ship”— (a) includes— (i) any kind of vessel used in navigation, and (ii) hovercraft; (b) includes a ship which is registered in a State other than the United Kingdom.’ Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Act: non-qualifying seafarers 4 After section 1 insert— ‘Part 2 Remuneration of seafarers Chapter 1 Non-qualifying seafarers’. 5 In section 2 (non-qualifying seafarers), in paragraph (a), for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’. Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Act: national minimum wage equivalence declarations 6 For the italic heading before section 3 substitute— ‘Chapter 2 National minimum wage equivalence declarations’. 7 In section 3 (request for declaration)— (a) in the heading, after ‘for’ insert ‘equivalence’; (b) in subsection (1)— (i) for ‘Act applies’ substitute ‘Chapter applies (see subsection (4A))’; (ii) at the end insert ‘(see section 19 for the meaning of “relevant year”)’; (c) after subsection (4) insert— ‘(4A) This Chapter applies to a relevant service, subject to provision made by remuneration regulations in reliance on section 4A(6).’; (d) omit subsections (5) and (6). 8 In section 4 (nature of declaration)— (a) in the heading, after ‘of’ insert ‘equivalence’; (b) after subsection (5) insert— ‘(5A) For the meaning of “UK work”, see section 19. (5B) For the meaning of “national minimum wage equivalent”, see section 4D(1).’; (c) omit subsections (6) to (10). Chapters 3 and 4 of Part 2 of the Act: remuneration regulations and declarations 9 After section 4 insert— ‘Chapter 3 Remuneration regulations and declarations Remuneration regulations 4A Remuneration regulations (1) Regulations may specify requirements relating to the remuneration of non-qualifying seafarers in respect of their work carried out in relation to the provision of a relevant service (whether or not in the territorial waters of the United Kingdom). (2) In this Act, regulations under subsection (1) are referred to as “remuneration regulations”. (3) Remuneration regulations may relate to remuneration in respect of only some of the work carried out in relation to the provision of a relevant service, and may frame such provision by reference to the waters in which the work is carried out or in any other way. (4) Remuneration regulations may apply to— (a) all relevant services, or (b) one or more relevant services of a specified description. (5) For the purposes of subsection (4)(b), a service may be described by reference to (among other things) the route operated by the service. (6) Remuneration regulations may provide that Chapter 2 does not apply to any extent to a relevant service to which the regulations apply. Remuneration declarations 4B Request for remuneration declaration (1) Subsection (2) applies where a harbour authority has reasonable grounds to believe that ships providing a service to which remuneration regulations apply will enter, or have entered, its harbour on at least— (a) 120 occasions, or (b) if remuneration regulations specify a higher number in relation to services of a specified description and the service is of that description, that higher number of occasions, during a relevant year (see section 19 for the meaning of “relevant year”). (2) The harbour authority must, within such period as is determined by regulations under this subsection, request that the operator of the service provide the authority with a remuneration declaration in respect of the service for the relevant year. (3) The duty under subsection (2) is subject to any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 16(1)(a). (4) A harbour authority which fails to comply with subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction— (a) in England and Wales, to a fine, or (b) in Scotland and Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. 4C Nature of remuneration declaration (1) A remuneration declaration in respect of a service for a relevant year is a declaration within any of subsections (2) to (5). (2) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided before the beginning of the relevant year and it is to the effect that— (a) in the relevant year there will be no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service, or (b) in the relevant year non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service will be remunerated in respect of their work in relation to the service in accordance with the remuneration regulations that apply in relation to them. (3) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that— (a) in what remains of the relevant year there will be no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service, or (b) in what remains of the relevant year non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service will be remunerated in respect of their work in relation to the service in accordance with the remuneration regulations that apply in relation to them. (4) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that— (a) in so much of the relevant year as has already occurred— (i) there have been no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service, or (ii) non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service have been remunerated in respect of their work in relation to the service in accordance with the remuneration regulations that apply in relation to them, and (b) in what remains of the relevant year— (i) there will be no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service, or (ii) non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service will be remunerated in respect of their work in relation to the service in accordance with the remuneration regulations that apply in relation to them. (5) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided after the end of the relevant year and it is to the effect that— (a) in the relevant year there were no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service, or (b) in the relevant year non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service were remunerated in respect of their work in relation to the service in accordance with the remuneration regulations that apply in relation to them. Chapter 4 Chapters 2 and 3: supplementary regulations 4D Regulations about national minimum wage equivalent etc (1) For the purposes of this Part, the national minimum wage equivalent is an hourly rate specified in regulations. (2) Regulations may make provision for determining for the purposes of this Part— (a) the hourly rate at which a non-qualifying seafarer is remunerated in any period in respect of any work, and (b) whether, or the extent to which, a non-qualifying seafarer’s work in relation to a relevant service is UK work. (3) Regulations under subsection (2)(a) may in particular make— (a) any provision referred to in section 2(2) to (6) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998; (b) provision relating to currency conversion. (4) Subsection (5) applies for the purposes of— (a) section 4, and (b) remuneration regulations that are framed by reference to the national minimum wage equivalent. (5) The Secretary of State must in making regulations under this section seek to secure that a non-qualifying seafarer is remunerated at a rate equal to the national minimum wage equivalent only if their remuneration is in all the circumstances broadly equivalent to the remuneration they would receive if they qualified for the national minimum wage.’ Part 3 of the Act: seafarers’ working conditions 10 After section 4D (inserted by paragraph 9 of this Schedule) insert— ‘Part 3 Seafarers’ working conditions Safe working regulations 4E Safe working regulations (1) In this Part, “seafarer” means a person who works on a ship providing a relevant service. (2) Regulations may specify conditions relating to the working pattern and rest requirements of seafarers who carry out work relating to the provision of a relevant service, including conditions about— (a) their maximum periods of work in a specified period; (b) their minimum periods of rest in a specified period. (3) Regulations may make provision for the purpose of managing and mitigating risks arising from fatigue suffered by seafarers when carrying out their work relating to the provision of a relevant service. (4) Regulations under subsection (3) may, among other things— (a) require the operator of a relevant service to produce a plan to manage and mitigate risks arising from fatigue suffered by seafarers when carrying out their work relating to the provision of the service (a “fatigue management plan”); (b) make provision about the contents of such a plan by reference to a specified document as amended from time to time. (5) Regulations may make provision for and in connection with the training of seafarers who carry out work relating to the provision of a relevant service, for the purpose of ensuring— (a) the safety of the ship on which they work, (b) the safety of things on the ship, or (c) the health or safety of persons on the ship. (6) In this Act, regulations under subsection (2), (3) or (5) are referred to as “safe working regulations”. (7) Safe working regulations may impose requirements on the operator of a relevant service. (8) Safe working regulations may apply to— (a) all relevant services, or (b) one or more relevant services of a specified description. (9) For the purposes of subsection (8)(b), a service may be described by reference to (among other things) the route operated by the service. Safe working declarations 4F Request for safe working declaration (1) Subsection (2) applies where a harbour authority has reasonable grounds to believe that ships providing a service to which safe working regulations apply will enter, or have entered, its harbour on at least— (a) 120 occasions, or (b) if safe working regulations specify a higher number in relation to services of a specified description and the service is of that description, that higher number of occasions, during a relevant year (see section 19 for the meaning of “relevant year”). (2) The harbour authority must, within such period as is determined by regulations under this subsection, request that the operator of the service provide the authority with a safe working declaration in respect of the service for the relevant year. (3) The duty under subsection (2) is subject to any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 16(1)(a). (4) A harbour authority which fails to comply with subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction— (a) in England and Wales, to a fine, or (b) in Scotland and Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. 4G Nature of safe working declaration (1) A safe working declaration in respect of a service for a relevant year is a declaration within any of subsections (2) to (5). (2) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided before the beginning of the relevant year and it is to the effect that the safe working conditions will be met in relation to the service in the relevant year. (3) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that the safe working conditions will be met in relation to the service in what remains of the relevant year. (4) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that— (a) the safe working conditions have been met in relation to the service in so much of the relevant year as has already occurred, and (b) the safe working conditions will be met in relation to the service in what remains of the relevant year. (5) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided after the end of the relevant year and it is to the effect that the safe working conditions were met in relation to the service in the relevant year. (6) For the purposes of this section the safe working conditions are met in relation to a service at a particular time if at that time— (a) the service is operated in compliance with regulations under section 4E(2) or (3) that apply to the service, (b) the service is operated in compliance with a fatigue management plan that is required for the service by regulations under section 4E(3) (see section 4E(4)), and (c) the service is operated in compliance with regulations under section 4E(5) that apply to the service. (7) References in subsection (6) to the operation of a service include references to its operation outside the territorial waters of the United Kingdom.’ Part 4 of the Act: enforcement of Parts 2 and 3 11 After section 4G (inserted by paragraph 10 of this Schedule) insert— ‘Part 4 Enforcement of Parts 2 and 3 Offence of operating service inconsistently with declaration’. 12 In section 5 (offence of operating service inconsistently with declaration)— (a) in subsection (1)— (i) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’; (ii) in paragraph (a), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’; (b) in subsections (2), (3) and (4), omit ‘equivalence’. 13 (1) Section 6 (imposition of surcharges: failure to provide declaration in time) is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1)(a)— (a) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’; (b) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’. (3) In subsection (1)(b), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘the requested declaration’. (4) In subsection (2)(b)(ii), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘the requested declaration’. (5) In subsection (3)(b)(ii), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘the requested declaration’. (6) In subsection (5)(a), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘the requested declaration’. (7) In subsection (5)(b), for ‘section 4(4) or (5).’ substitute ‘— (i) section 4(4) or (5), (ii) section 4C(4) or (5), or (iii) section 4G(4) or (5), (whichever applies).’ (8) In subsection (6)— (a) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’; (b) in the definition of ‘prescribed period’, for ‘3(5)(a)’ substitute ‘16A(1)(a)’; (c) in the definition of ‘prescribed form and manner’, for ‘3(5)(b) and (c)’ substitute ‘16A(1)(b) and (c)’. 14 In section 7 (imposition of surcharges: in-year declaration that is prospective only), in subsection (1)— (a) in paragraph (a)— (i) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’; (ii) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’; (b) in paragraph (b), for ‘3(5)’ substitute ‘16A(1)’; (c) in paragraph (c), for the words from ‘within subsection (3)’ to the end substitute ‘— (i) within subsection (3) of section 4 (and not also within subsection (4) of that section), (ii) within subsection (3) of section 4C (and not also within subsection (4) of that section), or (iii) within subsection (3) of section 4G (and not also within subsection (4) of that section), (whichever applies).’ 15 (1) Section 8 (imposition of surcharges: operating inconsistently with declaration) is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1)(a)— (a) for ‘service to which this Act applies” substitute ‘relevant service’; (b) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’. (3) In subsection (3), after ‘equivalence declaration’ insert ‘, remuneration declaration or safe working declaration (as the case may be)’; (4) In subsection (4)(a)— (a) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’; (b) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’. (5) In subsection (6), after ‘equivalence declaration’ insert ‘, remuneration declaration or safe working declaration (as the case may be)’. 16 In section 11 (refusal of harbour access for failure to pay surcharge), in subsection (1), for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’. 17 (1) Section 12 (provision of information by operators) is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1)— (a) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’; (b) in paragraphs (a) and (b), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’. (3) In subsection (2)— (a) in paragraph (b), at the beginning insert ‘for the purposes of Part 2,’; (b) after paragraph (b) insert— ‘(c) for the purposes of Part 3— (i) information relating to the working pattern, working conditions or training of persons working on ships providing the service; (ii) a fatigue management plan produced by the operator of the service (see section 4E(4)(a)).’ (4) In subsection (5), for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’. 18 In section 13 (provision of information by harbour authorities), in subsection (2)(b), omit ‘equivalence’. 19 In section 14 (inspections), in subsection (2)— (a) in paragraph (a), for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’; (b) in paragraphs (a) and (b), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’. Part 5 of the Act: general and final provisions 20 After section 15 insert— ‘Part 5 General and final provisions’. 21 After section 16 insert— ‘16A Regulations about declarations (1) Regulations may make provision— (a) as to the period within which declarations are to be provided; (b) as to the wording of declarations and the form in which they are to be provided; (c) as to the manner in which declarations are to be provided. (2) Regulations under subsection (1)(b) may specify a single form combining different kinds of declarations (but a requirement to provide a declaration in such a form does not require an operator of a service to provide a declaration which a harbour authority has not requested the operator to provide).’ 22 In section 17 (regulations)— (a) in the heading, at the end insert ‘: general’; (b) in subsection (2)(a), for sub-paragraph (i) (but not the ‘or’ after it) substitute— ‘(i) relevant service,’. 23 (1) Section 19 (general interpretation) is amended as follows. (2) After the definition of ‘the data protection legislation’ insert— ‘“declaration” (without more) means— (a) an equivalence declaration, (b) a remuneration declaration, or (c) a safe working declaration;’. (3) Omit the definition of ‘national minimum wage equivalent’. (4) In the definition of ‘operator’, for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’. (5) After the definition of ‘operator’ insert— ‘“relevant service” has the meaning given by section 1;’. (6) In the definition of ‘relevant year’, for ‘has the meaning given by section 3(6);’ substitute ‘means— (a) the period of 12 months beginning with a date specified in regulations, and (b) each successive period of 12 months;’. (7) After the definition of ‘relevant year’ insert— ‘“remuneration declaration” has the meaning given by section 4C(1); “remuneration regulations” has the meaning given by section 4A(2); “safe working declaration” has the meaning given by section 4G(1); “safe working regulations” has the meaning given by section 4E(6);’. (8) In the definition of ‘UK work’, for ‘has the meaning given by section 4(10)’ substitute ‘means work which is carried out in the United Kingdom or its territorial waters’. Amendment of title of the Act 24 (1) The Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 may be cited as the Seafarers (Wages and Working Conditions) Act 2023. (2) For the words ‘Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023’ wherever they occur in any enactment substitute ‘Seafarers (Wages and Working Conditions) Act 2023’.”—(Justin Madders.) This schedule 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 working on ships providing services currently covered by that Act. Those conditions are enforceable in the same way as existing provisions of that Act. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. Clause 113 Power to make consequential amendments Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

12:45:00

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 114 stand part.

I will be brief. The clauses are simple and standard, and they appear in most legislation. Clause 113 will allow the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments—that is, amendments that are immediately consequent upon a provision in the Bill—to primary or secondary legislation. Consequential amendments are necessary changes to other legislation to ensure that the law works alongside the changes to the law made in the Bill. Subsection (2) will allow the power to be used to amend primary legislation where we would not expect to be burdened with further primary legislation to make changes. Subsection (4) sets out that regulations that amend primary legislation will be subject to the affirmative procedure, thus maintaining Parliament’s ability to scrutinise the provisions made under the power. Clause 114 will allow the Secretary of State to make two types of provision. The first type is a transitional provision, which can be used specifically to assist the changeover from the state of the law before the Bill comes into force to the state of the law when it is fully in force. The second type is a saving provision, which can be used to preserve certain elements of the old law even after the new law comes into effect. They are used to maintain specific rights, obligations or legal effects that existed under the old law so that the changes will not apply in certain pre-existing cases. We have ensured that the powers conferred on the Secretary of State to make provisions under clauses 113 and 114 are limited. As I say, the clauses are customary provisions. I commend them to the Committee.

As the Minister says, the clauses are standard in a lot of legislation. Question put and agreed to. Clause 113 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 115 Regulations

I beg to move amendment 164, in clause 115, page 104, line 2, at end insert— “(3A) The Secretary of State must have regard to the following objectives when making any regulations under this Act— (a) the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom; and (b) its growth in the medium to long term.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term when making any regulations under the Act.

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 165, in clause 115, page 104, line 2, at end insert— “(3A) No regulations may be made under this Act unless the Secretary of State has— (a) consulted such persons as they consider relevant to the proposed regulations; and (b) laid before both Houses of Parliament a report of that consultation.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult and publish a report of that consultation before making any regulations under the Act.

I think this will be the last set of amendments we discuss, so let us ensure that they are good ones. Amendment 164 would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term when making any regulations under the Bill. Amendment 165 would require the Secretary of State to undertake consultations on all regulations published under the Bill. The effects of the Chancellor’s Budget of broken promises are apparent for all to see. On 7 January, the yield on a 30-year gilt broke a 27-year record, at 5.198%. That is the highest figure since the Debt Management Office was created in 1998. On Monday, the yield rose to 5.461%. That is not abstract; it reflects dwindling confidence in the UK economy, puts extra pressure on the Government’s headroom against their own fiscal rules and could lead to taxpayers paying billions more just to service the Government’s debts. The Chancellor has chosen to increase borrowing by an average of £32 billion a year for the next five years. That is the largest fiscal loosening in any fiscal event in recent years. It will add substantial pressure to those debt repayments. Earlier this week, The i Paper reported that average two-year and five-year fixed deals for those with 25% equity or deposit are now expected to rise above 5% in the coming weeks, causing more financial pain for buyers and those trying to remortgage. The Budget, the rise in employer national insurance contributions and, importantly, the provisions in the Bill could not be described as pro-growth, yet the Government repeatedly assure us that growth is the one thing they will deliver, which will unlock everything else. Amendment 164 would restore the Government’s good intentions and get them back on track. It would ensure that the Secretary of State has regard to the need to ensure growth when making regulations under the Bill. On the basis of all the evidence that we have seen since the general election, growth is clearly not front and centre in the Government’s thinking when they are making policy. It must be. Amendment 165 would ensure that the Secretary of State consults properly before making regulations under the extensive powers in the Bill. It is merely to hold the Government to their word: they acknowledge that in many respects the policy in the Bill is undercooked and needs further work before implementation. With these final amendments that the Committee will discuss, let us lay down the gauntlet and see whether the Government will put their money where their mouth is. If the Government are serious about growth, they will surely accept amendment 164.

Throughout our debates, Conservative colleagues have been critical of the Government for not having an oven-ready Bill and emphasising the need for further consultation. I have sympathy with that, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham. However, the last Conservative amendment that we will consider in Committee would require consultation, so I wonder whether the Labour party’s proposals have worn the Conservatives down into believing in it. I am delighted by that; perhaps they have changed their minds on the rest of the Bill, too. I hope that the Minister will grasp the opportunity with both hands.

The shadow Minister’s amendment 164, as he said, would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the UK’s growth and international competitiveness when making any regulations under the Bill. As the shadow Minister knows, the Government are committed to getting growth in this country back on track and to maintaining and strengthening our international standing. I noticed that in his litany of negative economic news, he forgot to mention today’s growth figures, which show us back in positive territory. Our employment rights framework is about ensuring that the economy works for everyone. The Government believe our plan to make work pay will bring the UK back in line internationally and tackle issues with low growth, productivity and pay. The plan is not only a core part of the mission to grow the economy, but crucial to delivering on our milestone to raise living standards across the country and to create opportunities for all. It sits alongside work on planning reform, the skills revolution, tackling inactivity and launching our vision for a modern industrial strategy. The strategy will enable the UK’s already world-leading services and manufacturing sectors to adapt and grow, seizing opportunities internationally to lead in new sectors, with high-quality, well-paid jobs. It will be grounded in long-term stability, a renewed commitment to free and fair trade, and a pro-business approach focused on reducing barriers to investment in the UK. We have committed to full and detailed engagement with businesses and trade unions alike as we develop the detail of regulations under the Bill. Our published impact assessment evaluates a wide range of evidence and concludes that the package could have a direct and positive impact on growth. Our intention is to refine our analysis as policy development continues, including by publishing updated option assessments and impact assessments, alongside future consultations and secondary legislation, to meet our better regulation requirements. In developing the detail of regulations, our officials and Ministers will pay close heed to the potential impacts on growth, as well as to our international comparability. We are committed to ensuring that we get support across the country among workers and employers alike. Amendment 165 would require the Secretary of State to consult, and to publish a report of consultation that has been undertaken on specific measures, before making any regulations under the Bill. As was noted by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay, those on the Conservative Benches have taken a rather vacillating approach to consultation during the passage of the Bill, but we have been clear that we are pro-business and pro-worker. That is reflected in our approach, not just in Committee but with engagement since before the Bill’s publication, to ensure that our plan to make work pay is delivered. As the Committee knows, we have committed to full and comprehensive consultation with all stakeholders. We began in October with an initial consultation package and, as set out in the “Next Steps to Make Work Pay” document, we will consult further on the implementation of the Bill’s measures. Alongside formal consultations, we have conducted extensive engagement on how best to put our plans into practice. We have already held and attended about 40 meetings of external stakeholders related to “Make Work Pay”. Eighteen of those meetings have been specific to businesses, eight specific to trade unions, and seven held in a tripartite setting. I have written to the shadow Minister with details of the engagement that has already taken place. The figures are not exhaustive and do not include officials’ meetings or recurring meetings with external organisations to discuss a range of topics. I therefore suggest that we are engaging and consulting fully and that the amendment is not necessary.

Well, there we have it. The Government who say they are pro-growth have shown their true colours and will not back our amendment to prove their intentions towards growth. This whole Bill is a socialist charter and we know that we cannot have socialism and growth at the same time. The history books have taught us that time and again. We deeply regret the Government’s resistance to these two amendments. We will continue to be the party that champions business, growth and getting our economy going again, while this Government do everything they can, in this Bill and in their Budget and in so many other ways, to hold our economy back.

Will the shadow Minister give way?

Of course I will. Bring it on.

I am going to try an entirely new tactic to derail the shadow Minister mid-stride. This is a genuine question, and I hope he answers it. Does he agree that throughout our line-by-line discussion of the Bill, he has been most generous with his time in accepting interventions that I believe to have been valuable?

I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is for others to judge whether any Member of this House has been generous or otherwise. What I can say, as we come towards the end of our debate on the final amendments and move on to the final clauses, is that we have had a good debate in this Bill Committee. It has not been one of those where those on the Government Benches are told to be quiet in the interest of getting on with it. We have had a genuine debate and a back and forth. Although we have not always agreed, and it looks like we do not agree on the amendments we are debating right now, we have had a debate. Our constituents sent us all here to represent them in arguments over ideas, concepts and values, and practical steps to meet the ideas and values that we hold dear, and we have done so. I agree with the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. On amendments 164 and 165, I repeat that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition regret that the Government do not wish to accept these pro-growth amendments. I will not press them for now, but we may well be seeing them very soon, when the Bill returns to the main Chamber on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

I hope the Committee will agree that, like other clauses we have debated in part 6, clause 115 is a straightforward and customary provision. It sets out various procedural aspects that are relevant to the making of regulations under the Bill by statutory instrument, with the exception of commencement regulations, which I will speak to separately as they are dealt with in clause 118. Subsection (2) sets out that regulations made under the Bill may make different provision for different purposes, and that they may contain supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provisions. Subsections (4) and (5) explain what is meant by references in the Bill to the negative procedure and the affirmative procedure. The delegated powers memorandum sets out each power in the Bill, as introduced, and justifies the procedure set out in the relevant clause.

I reiterate that we think the clause could have been improved by our amendments, but, for the time being, that is not to be the case. Question put and agreed to. Clause 115 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 116 Financial provision Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 117 to 119 stand part.

Clause 116 simply sets out that expenditure incurred under the terms of the Bill is to be met by supplies from Parliament. Clause 117 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill as introduced. With the exception of clause 25, parts 1, 2 and 4 extend to England, Wales and Scotland; part 3 extends to England and Wales only; and clause 25 and parts 5 and 6 extend to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is also worth noting that amendments or repeals made by the Bill have the same extent as the provision amended or repealed. Clause 118 sets out the manner in which provisions of the Bill will be commenced. Subsections (1) and (2) set out which provisions come into force on Royal Assent and two months after Royal Assent respectively. In respect of all other provisions, subsection (3) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the days that such provisions come into force. Finally, clause 119 provides that the short title of the legislation will be the Employment Rights Act.

13:00:00

I am grateful to the Minister for taking us through those standard clauses at the end of the Bill. The only thing worthy of comment, which has come up during our debates on many of the clauses, is the variable commencement timings of some of the provisions, as listed in clause 118. I appreciate that that can happen in legislation from time to time, but the variable timescale adds an element of confusion for businesses. Some provisions will be commenced immediately, some after two months, and some after longer than that. With that, we come to the end of our debates on the clauses and will move on to decide on measures that we have already debated. As I said in response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles in the last debate, we have had a good debate in Committee. We have clearly outlined a number of areas where the two major parties in the House of Commons disagree on the approach to the Bill, but let nobody be in any doubt that we have gone through it line by line and debated it in a good level of detail. I will end simply by saying that although clause 119 gives the short title of the Bill and says that “This Act may be cited as the Employment Rights Act 2025”, the Opposition’s view is that it will, in reality, be the Employment (Job Losses) Act. Question put and agreed to. Clause 116 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 117 Extent Amendments made: 206, in clause 117, page 104, line 22, for “Part 3 of this Act extends” substitute “Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 3 of this Act extend”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 207. Amendment 207, in clause 117, page 104, line 22, at end insert— “(ba) Chapter 3 of Part 3 of this Act extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland;”. This amendment states the extent of the new Chapter proposed to be formed by NC48 and NS3. Amendment 107, in clause 117, page 104, line 24, at end insert— “(1A) Sections (Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: removal of waiting period) and (Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: lower earnings limit etc) (statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland) extend to Northern Ireland only.” This amendment is consequential on amendments NC5 and NC6; it limits the extent of new clauses (Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: removal of waiting period) and (Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: lower earnings limit etc) to Northern Ireland only. Amendment 108, in clause 117, page 104, line 27, leave out “An amendment or repeal” and insert “Except as set out in subsection (4), an amendment, repeal or revocation”. This amendment is consequential on NS2 and amendment 109. Amendment 109, in clause 117, page 104, line 28, leave out “amended or repealed.” and insert “amended, repealed or revoked. (4) In Schedule (Increase in time limits for making claims) (increase in time limits for making claims)— (a) the amendments made by paragraph 9(3) and (4) extend to Northern Ireland only; (b) the amendments made by paragraphs 10, 12 and 13 extend to England and Wales and Scotland only.”—(Justin Madders.) This amendment would limit the extent of certain amendments in NS2 so that they only extend to Northern Ireland or Great Britain (where they would otherwise extend to both). This is to ensure that the increase in time limits in those cases only applies in relation to employment tribunals in Great Britain. Clause 117, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 118 Commencement Amendment made: 110, in clause 118, page 105, line 17, at end insert— “(na) section (Employment outside Great Britain) (employment outside Great Britain);”.—(Justin Madders.) This amendment would bring NC7 into force two months after Royal Assent. Clause 118, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Title Amendments made: 208, in title, line 6, after “Adult Social Care Negotiating Body;” insert “to amend the Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023;”. This amendment is consequential on NS3. Amendment 209, in title, line 6, after “Adult Social Care Negotiating Body;” insert “to make provision for the implementation of international agreements relating to maritime employment;”.—(Justin Madders.) This amendment is consequential on NC52. Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

I wish to thank you, Sir Christopher, and the other Chairs who have presided over this lengthy Bill Committee. I also thank the Clerks, Doorkeepers and Hansard reporters. I thank all members of the Committee who have participated in what has been a healthy and engaging debate. No doubt there will be more discussions and debates to come as the Bill progresses. I also thank the officials Cal Stewart, Jack Masterman and Shelley Torey.

Thank you, Sir Christopher. All good things must come to an end, and sadly that includes this Committee. I echo the thanks given by the Minister to the workers—to everyone who has supported the Committee—and I thank our Front Benchers, who have done a sterling job and from time to time gently and appropriately warded us off our individual enthusiasms. Perhaps that was just me. Work on what became this Bill began a long time ago. It is hard to believe that almost five years have passed since my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles and I first became involved in the discussions. To name contributors is to commit the sin of omission. That is the case too for the staff of the Labour party, due to the party’s professional code of modesty, but I would like to place a few names on the record. They include my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Kate Dearden) and for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson), who previously ably represented the Community and Unison unions respectively, including through the Labour party’s national policy forum. That was in itself an exhaustive process. I just say to hon. Members that if they liked this Committee, they would have loved the NPF. I am sorry to disappoint Opposition Members, but there was no smoke in those rooms, and no beer. There were occasionally sandwiches. I would be in error if I did not personally thank Jaden Wilkins in my office and the staff of the TUC for their consistently excellent research publications. I also thank some of the GMB figures who made critical contributions during that time, including the national political officers during that period—Tom Warnett, Caitlin Prowle and Gavin Sibthorpe, who put in more hours than anyone—the national legal officer, Barry Smith, and the staff of the research and policy department, Anna Barnes, Ross Holden and Cassie Farmer. Finally, I would like to mention the staff of the Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation: Robbie Scott, Kieran Maxwell and Helen Pearce—the best political organiser in the labour movement, who herded cats and moved mountains.

I echo the thanks that the Minister gave, particularly to the Clerks of the Committee, the wider Scrutiny Unit and everyone else who has worked so hard. These Bills are an enormous amount of hard work for the staff of the House, particularly the Clerks, and it is always appreciated by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Likewise, from the Doorkeepers and Hansard to everyone who prepares the room for us, it is an enormous job of work, and we thank them most sincerely. The Bill will shortly move on to Report, when the battle will recommence. In the meantime, Sir Christopher, I thank you and the other Chairs of the Committee for your chairmanship. We look forward to the next round.

I echo the thanks to you, Sir Christopher, and the other Chairs who have ably chaired the Committee. I thank the Clerks, Doorkeepers and Hansard, who have reported throughout. I thank colleagues for the good-natured way that the Bill has been debated. This is my first Bill Committee, and I look forward with gusto to my next one. I also thank Laura Green, who has ably supported me throughout the Committee.

It would be easy for me to express exactly what the hon. Member for Torbay has just said in thanking everybody who has been involved. My only concern as we go to the next stage is that of all the amendments we have discussed and all the measures that have been proposed, not a single one has been adopted. There is an issue with that in general, because the Government have such a large majority. I guess that is not a bad thing for Labour Members, but it has meant that we have lacked the ability to really pull things apart. I hope that will come at the next stage. That is my only disappointment, but I wanted to put it on the record, because I know that it is a concern shared by other Members on both sides of the House. I hope that the Minister is listening so that we can get far more robust and real opportunities to amend and improve the Bill, which we all wish to see.

May I thank everybody for their kind remarks? I know I speak for all other Chairs when I say that it has been a very good-natured Committee. Almost everybody has been in a new role: for some people it was their first Standing Committee, for others it was their first leading for the Opposition, and for some it was their first real Committee as a Minister. Everybody has performed pretty well—you should all be able to thank yourselves for that. I also thank the Clerks—behind every amendment is a heck of a lot of work by them—the Hansard reporters, who have done their job assiduously, and the Badge Messengers and Doorkeepers and everybody else involved, not forgetting the electricians who managed to ensure that we kept the lights going. Question put and agreed to. Bill, as amended, to be reported.

13:12:00

Written evidence reported to the House

ERB 82 Professor Carol Atkinson, Professor of Human Resource Management, Centre for Decent Work and Productivity, Manchester Metropolitan University

ERB 83 Dr Mat Johnson, Senior Lecturer in HR Management and Employment Studies, Work and Equalities Institute, University of Manchester; Professor Jill Rubery, Executive Director of the Work and Equalities Institute, Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester; and Dr Eva Herman, Research Associate, Work and Equalities Institute, University of Manchester

ERB 84 British Medical Association