Justin Madders MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 22 Jan 2025 · Competition and Markets Authority Chairman · Hansard source

  More

  That is certainly something that the CMA has been dealing with, and I am sure that we will be able to provide my hon. Friend with an update shortly.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  First, I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for moving the new clause. This is his clause 4 moment—the road to socialism is often a long one, but I am glad to see he is taking steps towards it. He raises an important topic on behalf of the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran); indeed, a number of Members of the House have discussed it with me over a period of time, because the use of non-disclosure agreements presents challenges. As has been said, NDAs can be used quite legitimately in different contexts and contracts. As the responsible Department for the use of NDAs in employment relationships, we recognise that they can have a legitimate role, such as to protect trade secrets, intellectual property and commercially sensitive information. Of course their most common use is in allowing workers and employers to reach a settlement on a dispute or a claim. It goes without saying that a worker may want to settle a dispute and receive the confidentiality protections associated with a settlement agreement to avoid going through an employment tribunal, which can be a distressing experience in itself. Having a non-disclosure agreement can also increase the value of such an agreement, depending how negotiations go. There are existing legal limits to the use of NDAs in the employment context. For example, any clauses of an NDA that sought to stop a worker blowing the whistle to a lawyer or a prescribed person under the legislation would not be enforceable. The use of an NDA by an employer may amount to a criminal offence if it is an attempt by the employer to pervert the course of justice or conceal a criminal offence. A settlement agreement under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and any confidentiality clauses it contains is void if the worker did not receive independent advice on the terms and effect of the agreement. Speaking as one who has given such advice on countless occasions, I can assure the Committee that this a matter the legal profession takes very seriously. None the less, workers may not be aware of their rights. Both the Equality and Human Rights Commission and ACAS have published guidance on NDAs, but reports continue of improper use of NDAs, as the hon. Member for Torbay mentioned, particularly in relation to sexual harassment, discrimination and bullying in the workplace. Last year, the Women and Equalities Committee inquiry into misogyny in music and the Treasury Committee inquiry into sexism in the City reported on the misuse of NDAs in specific sectors and industries. Their reports highlighted how NDAs can have a silencing effect on some victims, who come under pressure to sign an NDA and are not aware of their existing rights, and how NDAs may be a part of wider organisational cultures and practices for some employers. We have heard a clear example of that today. The Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Legal Services Board have also recently conducted a call for evidence and a thematic review into the use of NDAs among the legal profession. Overall, those reports highlight that, while we have seen some progress and some positive developments, the issues in this space are multiple and persistent. The Government are live to the concerns about the misuse of NDAs to intimidate and silence victims of crime and other types of misconduct, particularly harassment, discrimination, and bullying. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 contains a measure that, when commenced, will ensure that victims can report a crime, co-operate with regulators and access confidential advice and support without fear of legal action. It does so by providing that any clauses in NDAs seeking to prevent those actions cannot legally be enforced. The Ministry of Justice is carefully considering plans to bring the relevant section of that Act into force and will be working closely with the victim support and business sectors to ensure that the new measure is implemented and deployed effectively. We continue to listen carefully to representations on further action needed to curb the misuse of NDAs. The specific wording that is proposed today would make any provision in an agreement precluding a worker from making a relevant disclosure that relates to harassment carried out by a fellow worker, or client of their employer, unenforceable. Under the consequential amendment, the measure would come into force on the day that this legislation is passed. I have some reservations about the amendment as drafted, as it would make a significant change from the current position and there might be unintended consequences. To render provisions related to disclosures on harassment unenforceable could have negative effects on both workers and employers. A worker may want to settle a dispute over harassment and receive the confidentiality protections associated with a settlement agreement. The proposal may also impact on their ability to reach a settlement and avoid going to an employment tribunal, or may indeed reduce the value of such an agreement. The amendment may also lead to uncertainty for both employers and workers who have entered into NDAs previously. The Government are looking into this. There is obviously some evidence, and there was a Government consultation, but that was some time ago, so we intend to look more closely at what we can do in this area. I have met some of the interested parties and there are other proposals to deal with this issue that might be slightly more workable than those in the new clause proposed by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. I say to him that although we are aware of this issue and know it needs attention, we are not able to support the new clause.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  New clause 7 and amendment 110 have been tabled to fix an apparent drafting error in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Committee has already debated a Government amendment to section 285(1B) of that Act, which will close a loophole in the requirement to notify the UK Government of collective redundancies for foreign-flagged ships. New clause 7 and amendment 110 concern subsections (1) and (1A) of the same section. Section 285(1) currently disapplies the collective redundancy notification requirements and certain other requirements for employees who are “working”—as opposed to “ordinarily working”—outside Great Britain, and section 285(1A) disapplies the requirements of sections 145A to 151 of the 1992 Act, “where under his contract personally to do work or perform services a worker who is not an employee works outside Great Britain.” This, unfortunately, could have the effect of excluding employees who spend any of their working time outside the UK from the requirements of the legislation. I apologise, as that appears to have been a drafting oversight. New clause 7 will introduce the word “ordinarily” ahead of the words “works outside Great Britain”, which will ensure that employees who spend some of their working time outside the UK or its territorial workers will not be excluded from the legislation. I hope that Members can see that this is an important and necessary change.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  If we start getting into the right to switch off from people we might not want to hear from, we could end up in a very dark place. The shadow Minister will see from the reaction on the Government Benches that we have never had any issue with nuisance calls or pestering from trade unions when we have been in the workplace—it is really not like that at all. These proposals are indicative of the rather outdated idea that some Opposition Members have about how trade unions operate. Were they passed, one of the unintended consequences would undoubtedly be increased demand on facility time—something I am sure the shadow Minister would not be too pleased about. Put bluntly, there is no demand for this requirement. I do not think anyone has suggested it to officials—certainly not trade unions or, indeed, employers. There is nothing to stop a union member ignoring communication from their union. There is no obligation on them to respond to messages at any time. The employment relationship is, of course, very different to membership of a trade union, because there is a division between home and working lives, and a recognition that that has to be respected. Unfortunately, there is also an expectation that people should be constantly contactable outside of work hours. We will not be legislating to ban all communication outside of working hours; what we are looking to do is implement the statutory code of practice, which will set out clear expectations and obligations to get the balance right between allowing flexibility and making it clear that people’s home lives should be respected. There will be a consultation on that in due course, and I am sure the shadow Minister can submit something about trade unions contacting people if he wants to do so, but I suspect he will be the only one who does. But I am afraid I cannot support this new clause—or indeed take it seriously—so I reject it on that basis.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As the shadow Minister has identified, his new clause 31 seeks to require the Government to publish an assessment of the impact on specific sectors of the economy of the Bill’s provisions on zero-hours workers in clauses 1 to 6, and to lay the assessment before Parliament within six months of the passage of the Bill. Amendments 153 and 154 seek to ensure that the proposed new impact assessment requirement comes into force on the day that the Bill is passed, and that the provisions in clauses 1 to 6 cannot be commenced until the impact assessment has been published. I point out to the shadow Minister that we produced a set of impact assessments at Second Reading, which included analysis of the best available evidence on the specific sectors that he referred to. We recognise the importance of ensuring that the impacts of these policies on workers, businesses and the economy are considered, and that the analysis considers those potential impacts. We will refine our analysis of the impact over time, working closely with businesses, trade unions, academics and think-tanks, and continue to engage with the relevant sectors and Government Departments on these issues. We will publish enactment impact assessments in line with the requirements of the better regulation framework, which will account for ways in which the Bill has been amended in its passage through Parliament so as to change the impacts of the policy on businesses significantly. These will be published alongside the enacted legislation. In addition, we are committed to consulting with businesses and workers ahead of setting out secondary legislation, which will be necessary to implement the provisions, and we will work with the sectors listed in the proposed new clause as part of that. We will publish further analysis alongside those consultations to meet our better regulation requirements. There is no need for the new clause—there will be many opportunities for further analysis and refinement before the commencement of the regulations—and I therefore urge the shadow Minister to withdraw it.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister has been eagle-eyed and spotted the difference there. I am not aware of whether there is any specific reason, other than that, although this measure is quite important in its scope, it will not actually have too much of a practical day-to-day effect. As always, I will write to him if there is any more information that I can give him about the difference. Question put and agreed to. New clause 7 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 8 Power to enter dwelling subject to warrant “(1) An enforcement officer may not by virtue of section 79 enter any dwelling unless a justice has issued a warrant authorising the officer to enter the dwelling. (2) A justice may issue a warrant under this section only if, on an application by the officer, the justice is satisfied— (a) that the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that— (i) there are documents in the dwelling which for any enforcement purpose the officer wishes to inspect, examine or seize, or (ii) there is computer or other equipment in the dwelling to which the officer wishes to have access for any enforcement purpose, and (b) that any of the conditions in subsection (3) is satisfied. (3) The conditions are— (a) that it is not practicable to communicate with any person entitled to grant entry to the dwelling; (b) that it is not practicable to communicate with any person entitled to grant access to the documents or equipment; (c) that entry to the dwelling is unlikely to be granted unless a warrant is produced; (d) that the purpose of entry may be frustrated or seriously prejudiced unless an enforcement officer arriving at the dwelling can secure immediate entry to it. (4) In this section— ‘enforcement purpose’ has the same meaning as in section 79; ‘justice’ means— (a) in relation to England and Wales, a justice of the peace; (b) in relation to Scotland, a sheriff or summary sheriff; (c) in relation to Northern Ireland, a lay magistrate. (5) For further provision about warrants under this section, see section ( Warrants ) and Schedule ( Warrants under Part 5: further provision ).”— (Justin Madders.) This new clause provides that an enforcement officer may not exercise the power conferred by clause 79 to enter premises that are a dwelling without first obtaining a warrant. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 9 Warrants “(1) A warrant under section ( Power to enter dwelling subject to warrant ) or 83 may be executed by any enforcement officer. (2) A warrant under section ( Power to enter dwelling subject to warrant ) or 83 may authorise persons to accompany any enforcement officer who is executing it. (3) A person authorised under subsection (2) to accompany an enforcement officer may exercise any power conferred by this Part which the officer may exercise as a result of the warrant. (4) But the person may exercise such a power only in the company of, and under the supervision of, an enforcement officer. (5) Schedule ( Warrants under Part 5: further provision ) contains further provision about— (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. (6) The entry of premises under a warrant issued under section ( Power to enter dwelling subject to warrant ) or 83 is unlawful unless it complies with the provisions of Part 3 of that Schedule (execution of warrants).”— (Justin Madders.) This new clause makes further provision about warrants under Part 5. It enables warrants to authorise people to accompany the enforcement officer executing the warrant. It also provides that entry under a warrant is unlawful unless it complies with provisions of NS1 relating to the execution of warrants. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 10 Increase in time limits for making claims “Schedule ( Increase in time limits for making claims ) makes amendments for the purpose of increasing time limits for making claims in employment tribunals in Great Britain (and, in certain cases, industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland) from three months to six months.”— (Justin Madders.) This new clause would introduce NS2. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 11 Orders and regulations under Employment Rights Act 1996: procedure “In section 236 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (orders and regulations), after subsection (4) insert— ‘(4A) A statutory instrument containing an order or regulations under this Act to which subsection (3) applies may include an order or regulations under this Act to which subsection (3) would not otherwise apply. (4B) In such a case, the statutory instrument is to be proceeded with as if all of the orders and regulations contained in it were orders or regulations to which subsection (3) applies.’”— (Justin Madders.) This new clause, to be inserted into Part 6 of the Bill, would enable the combination of orders or regulations under the Employment Rights Act 1996 that would otherwise be subject to different Parliamentary procedures (or no Parliamentary procedure) in a statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 48 Seafarers’ wages and working conditions “Schedule ( Seafarers’ wages and working conditions ) amends the Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023.”—(Justin Madders.) This new clause introduces the Schedule proposed to be inserted by NS3. Brought up, and read the First time.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

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

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will not detain the Committee long, as we have debated schedule 7 and the amendments to it at length. Part 5 of the Bill lays the groundwork for the creation of the fair work agency. As a result, it will abolish the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority and the Director of Labour Market Enforcement. Schedule 7 sets out transitional and savings provisions that we need in place to set up the new body. Part 1 of schedule 7 gives powers to the Secretary of State to make transfer schemes to move staff, property, rights and liabilities of the GLAA and the DLME to the Secretary of State, and part 2 provides for other necessary transitional provisions, such as to ensure that smooth sharing of information can continue and to retain provisions that devolved legislation relies on.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for moving the new clause, and for tabling new clause 25 and amendments 128 and 129. In new clause 24 and amendment 128 he seeks, first, to insert into the Bill a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact on employment tribunals of the Bill’s zero-hours measures in clauses 1 to 6; and secondly, to provide that those measures cannot be commenced until that review has been conducted and laid before Parliament. The Government have already produced a comprehensive set of impact assessments. Our analysis included illustrative analysis of the impact on employment tribunal cases, which we intend to refine over time by working closely with the Ministry of Justice, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, ACAS and wider stakeholders. The quantifiable impact of the measures on zero-hours contracts is estimated to be an annual increase of about 1,000 additional cases for employment tribunals per year. That assessment was published at Second Reading and was based on the best available evidence for the potential impact on business, workers and the wider economy. We will also publish an enactment impact assessment once the Bill reaches Royal Assent, in line with the requirements of the better regulation framework. That will account for ways in which the Bill has been amended in its passage through Parliament in such a way as to change significantly the impacts of the policy on employment tribunals. That impact assessment will then be published alongside the enacted legislation. I therefore reassure the shadow Minister that there is no need for the Government to be required to bring new impact assessments before Parliament, as we intend to publish further analysis alongside future consultations, ahead of secondary legislation, in accordance with the better regulation requirements. The shadow Minister also seeks to insert new clause 25, which would include an assessment of the impact on employment tribunals of changes to protections against some kinds of dismissal in the Bill. Amendment 129 then seeks, again, to delay commencement of those changes until the review has been laid before Parliament. As I said, we have already produced a comprehensive set of impact assessments, which were published at Second Reading and based on the best available evidence for the potential impact. Our analysis includes illustrative assessment of the impact on employment tribunal cases, which we intend to refine over time by working closely with the Ministry of Justice, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, ACAS and wider stakeholders. The shadow Minister mentioned the concerns about unfair dismissal, especially for those on the margins of employment. Such concerns are, of course, one reason why a statutory probationary period has been proposed. He also mentioned the experience of the statutory dismissal and grievance procedures in the early 2000s. I assure him, having lived through that, that we do not wish to repeat those mistakes. We will look to ensure as much clarity and certainty as possible in the legislation before it is enacted. We will publish an enactment impact assessment once the Bill reaches Royal Assent, in line with the requirements of the better regulation framework. That will account, in those areas, for any ways in which the Bill has been amended in Parliament that change significantly the policy impact on the enforcement system. That will be published alongside the enacted legislation. I therefore assure the Committee that there is no need for the Bill to require the Government to undertake further assessment of the impact on tribunals before commencement, because we will do that as we go along. Impacts will be considered, and I am also looking at ways to ensure that the tribunals system is able to deal with any additional claims that may arise as a result of the Bill, and how it can work more efficiently with the significant backlogs that it already has. As the Committee will appreciate, that is within the purview of the Ministry of Justice, but clearly it is something that we intend to work closely with it on. I therefore invite the shadow Minister to withdraw his new clauses and amendments.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

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

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister seeks through the new clause and amendment to relitigate a number of the issues we debated last week, and he will not be surprised to hear that I will pick up on just one or two of his comments. He said that the 100-day deadline was unrealistic, but it was not, because we achieved it. All involved made a fantastic effort to ensure that we had a Bill published within that 100-day deadline. There have been some minor technical amendments to the Bill as we have moved along, and there are important issues of principle that we continue to engage and consult on. As the shadow Minister said, the new clause would require a consultation on the operation of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, as amended by part 4 of the Bill. I was not entirely clear whether he was referring just to the amendments to the 1992 Act by virtue of part 4 of this Bill or to the entire Act; in any event, there is some overlap between the two. We are pretty clear that the intention behind the new clause is to delay the Bill as much as possible. It would impinge on our desire and our manifesto commitment to improve workers’ rights and the ability of workers to have a meaningful voice through collective bargaining to secure pay and conditions. The shadow Minister will be aware that the Government have already undertaken a number of consultations, with four over the Christmas period, including one on modernising the framework for industrial relations, which would cover many of the provisions of the 1992 Act. As we move forward, get the Bill through Parliament and lay secondary legislation, there will be ongoing consultations and discussions about the provisions in the Bill, the application of codes of practice, and some of the matters that have been left for regulation. I do not believe that there is criticism about the level of consultation. We have engaged extensively with all stakeholders on a number of matters, and we will continue to do that almost weekly. The shadow Minister challenged me about how we can push the Bill forward, without there being questions as to whether it would lead to increased industrial action. The evidence we have is that legislation introduced by the Conservative Government led to increased industrial action in the last two years, and saw the highest levels of industrial action in decades. That shows that not putting industrial relations on a sensible footing and a collegiate basis is detrimental to them. The impact assessment for the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 made it clear it would worsen industrial relations, and so it proved. The shadow Minister talked about the burden and the red tape. A number of measures in the Bill will actually reduce burdens on employers’ organisations and trade unions in terms of notification and reporting requirements. He also challenged us on what the impact of some of this stuff will be. We can never say for sure that the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 will have any impact, because it has never been used. One of the fundamental weaknesses with that legislation was that it was so unworkable and so damaging to industrial relations that no one ever thought it was a sensible idea to implement it. There were also powers in the Trade Union Act 2016 that were never used. Where powers were used—for example, on facility time and the requirement to report that in the public sector—the figures at the start of the period for reporting were exactly the same as they were at the end. So there was a lot of hot air and posturing in that previous legislation, and it was not conducive to good industrial relations. We are more than happy to see the back of it, but of course we will continue to consult and engage with all stakeholders as we move forward on implementing our clear manifesto commitments. On that note, I would oppose these proposals.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We have heard two similar speeches from the Opposition that have raised a number of similar questions. The first question is: why do we need this? The whole suite of amendments and new clauses are in response to concerns that were rightly highlighted by all parties in condemning the P&O debacle and its underlying motives to undercut existing UK workers and employment laws by transferring people to lower terms and conditions. It is about stopping that race to the bottom. Members will recall the evidence from representatives of the sector in Committee sittings in November. They welcomed the provisions and were keen to see them introduced, because they wanted a level playing field. They did not want to be undercut by people who would seek to pay their staff the minimum necessary. It is about creating a level playing field and putting safeguards in place. I point out to Opposition Members that the conventions are already UK law. The measures in this group seek to ensure that when they are amended in future, there will be an opportunity to update our own laws to reflect any changes in the conventions. It was a fair question from the shadow Minister to ask what the conventions cover, and they obviously look at it important issues such as maximum hours of work, medical care, accommodation and access to food and drinking water. The maritime labour convention has been amended several times, with new requirements coming in only last month for seafarers to be provided with food and drinking water free of charge during their engagement, as well as provisions in relation to personal protective equipment and ensuring that they have access to social connectivity while at sea. The new measures are important to improve the working conditions of seafarers, and we currently do not have a mechanism to update our own laws to reflect them. Previously, when we were a member of the EU, the treaties were considered to be community treaties, which meant they were dealt with through regulations. We now need powers in our own legislation to ensure that we can keep up to date with developments in maritime law and protections. The shadow Minister asked how the powers might be used. Several amendments have been proposed to the convention, including to strengthen seafarers’ access to shore leave and improving protections against bullying and sexual harassment. We need to ensure that the powers in the legislation enable us to keep up with those important protections. Both Opposition Members mentioned the phrase “different provision for different purposes”. My understanding is that the power relates to the implementation of changes to the conventions rather than a broader power, as was suggested. The point about the negative procedure was noted. The drafting indicates that the initial implementation of regulations will be done by the affirmative procedure and thereafter changes to the law will be made by the negative procedure on the basis that those will be much more modest. The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire is welcome to table an amendment on Report if he thinks that the affirmative procedure should apply to all those issues. There was a question about furnishing records. If we are going to ensure compliance with international obligations, it is important that those subject to them can document their compliance with the regulations. There is therefore a power to ensure that those records are produced to demonstrate compliance. That is not a departure from the existing arrangements. There was a general question about the detention of ships. Existing regulations and implementation of the conventions allow for detention to continue or to be introduced where there is concern about compliance or about the health, safety and welfare of those on board the ships. I cannot give any examples of when that has been used, but I recall back in the depths of time a number of occasions when ships were stuck in port for a considerable time. I would have to check whether that was under this regulation, but I can send the hon. Member for Bridgwater further details. The powers that we seek to introduce are important to make sure that we keep up to date with the latest developments in international maritime law. It is important that there is a level playing field and that people doing this difficult and important work are protected. We must ensure that we never have a situation where employers such as P&O attempt a race to the bottom and we must ensure that standards are maintained across the board. On that basis, I commend these amendments to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. New clause 48 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 49 Information relating to the intelligence services, etc “(1) A power conferred by section 78 or 79 may not be exercised in relation to a person serving in an intelligence service unless the Secretary of State certifies that the condition in subsection (3) is met in relation to the power. (2) A power of entry conferred by this Part may not be exercised in relation to any premises (or any part of premises) used for the purposes of an intelligence service unless the Secretary of State certifies that the condition in subsection (3) is met in relation to the power. (3) The condition in this subsection is met in relation to a power if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the exercise of the power will not be contrary to the public interest or prejudicial to— (a) national security, (b) the prevention or detection of serious crime, or (c) the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. (4) A certificate issued under this section in relation to a power may impose conditions on the exercise of the power. (5) Except as provided for by subsection (1), nothing in this Part requires any person to— (a) produce any document containing intelligence service information, or (b) provide any information that is intelligence service information. (6) For the purposes of this section— (a) ‘crime’ means conduct which— (i) constitutes a criminal offence, or (ii) is, or corresponds to, any conduct which, if it all took place in any one part of the United Kingdom, would constitute a criminal offence; (b) crime is ‘serious’ if— (i) the offence which is or would be constituted by the conduct is an offence for which the maximum sentence (in any part of the United Kingdom) is imprisonment for three years or more, or (ii) the conduct involves the use of violence, results in substantial financial gain or is conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose; (c) ‘intelligence service information’ means information obtained directly or indirectly from, or that relates to, an intelligence service or a person acting on behalf of an intelligence service.”. —(Justin Madders.) This new clause would restrict the ability of the Secretary of State to exercise enforcement powers in relation to people serving in the intelligence services unless it had been certified that there was no risk to national security, etc. It would also restrict the ability of the Secretary of State to require others to provide documents or information relating to the work of the intelligence services. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 50 Providing false information or documents: national security etc defence “(1) A person in relation to whom a certificate is issued by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section is not liable for the commission of an offence under section 103 (offence of providing false information or documents). (2) The Secretary of State may issue a certificate in relation to a person for the purposes of this section only if satisfied that it is necessary for the person to engage in conduct amounting to such an offence— (a) in the interests of national security, (b) for the purposes of preventing or detecting serious crime, or (c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. (3) A certificate under this section may be revoked by the Secretary of State at any time. (4) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b)— (a) ‘crime’ means conduct which— (i) constitutes a criminal offence, or (ii) is, or corresponds to, any conduct which, if it all took place in any one part of the United Kingdom, would constitute a criminal offence, and (b) crime is ‘serious’ if— (i) the offence which is or would be constituted by the conduct is an offence for which the maximum sentence (in any part of the United Kingdom) is imprisonment for three years or more, or (ii) the conduct involves the use of violence, results in substantial financial gain or is conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose.”. —(Justin Madders.) This new clause would provide a defence to the offence in Clause 103 of providing false information or documents in response to a requirement imposed by the Secretary of State under Part 5 of the Bill. The defence would apply if the Secretary of State certified that the conduct in question was necessary in the interests of national security or for certain other limited reasons. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 52 International agreements relating to maritime employment “(1) The Merchant Shipping Act 1995 is amended as follows. (2) After section 84 insert— ‘Part 3A International agreements relating to maritime employment 84A International agreements relating to maritime employment (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of giving effect to— (a) the Maritime Labour Convention, adopted on 23 February 2006 by the International Labour Organisation, as it has effect from time to time; (b) the Work in Fishing Convention, adopted on 14 June 2007 by the International Labour Organisation, as it has effect from time to time. (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of giving effect to an international agreement that has been ratified by the United Kingdom, so far as the agreement relates to maritime employment. (3) The power in subsection (2) to give effect to an agreement so far as it relates to maritime employment includes power to give effect to any amendments of the agreement that relate to maritime employment. (4) For the purposes of this section, a provision relates to maritime employment if it relates to the terms and conditions of employment or engagement, or working conditions, of masters or seamen. (5) Section 84B makes further provision with respect to the regulations that may be made under this section. 84B Regulations under section 84A: supplementary (1) In subsections (2) to (9) “regulations” means regulations under section 84A. (2) Regulations— (a) may make provision in terms of approvals given by the Secretary of State or another person and in terms of any document which the Secretary of State or that other person considers relevant; (b) may provide for the cancellation of an approval given in pursuance of the regulations and for the alteration of the terms of such an approval; (c) must provide for any approval in pursuance of the regulations to be given in writing and to specify the date on which it takes effect and the conditions (if any) on which it is given. (3) Regulations may make provision for— (a) the granting by the Secretary of State or another person of exemptions from specified provisions of the regulations for classes of case or individual cases, on such terms (if any) as the Secretary of State or that other person may specify, and (b) for the alteration or cancellation of such exemptions. (4) Regulations may make provision in respect of the checking or monitoring of compliance with any provision of the regulations, including (among other things) provision for— (a) the making and keeping of records and the keeping of documents; (b) the issue of certificates; (c) the furnishing of information. (5) Regulations may— (a) provide for the detention of a ship in respect of which a contravention of the regulations is suspected to have occurred; (b) apply section 284 with or without modifications in relation to such detentions. (6) Regulations may provide for the contravention of any provision of the regulations to be a criminal offence, but may not provide— (a) for an offence under the regulations to be punishable on summary conviction with imprisonment; (b) in relation to Scotland or Northern Ireland— (i) for an offence under the regulations that is triable only summarily to be punishable by a fine exceeding level 5 on the standard scale; (ii) for an offence under the regulations that is triable summarily or on indictment to be punishable on summary conviction by a fine exceeding the statutory maximum; (c) for an offence under the regulations to be punishable on conviction on indictment with imprisonment for a term exceeding two years. (7) Regulations may provide that, in specified cases, specified persons each commit an offence created by regulations in reliance on subsection (6). (8) Regulations may— (a) make different provision for different purposes; (b) provide for references in the regulations to any specified document to operate as references to that document as revised or re-issued from time to time; (c) provide for the delegation of functions exercisable by virtue of the regulations. (9) The power to make regulations includes power to make consequential, supplementary, incidental or transitional provision. (10) The powers conferred by section 84A to make provision for the purpose of giving effect to an agreement or an amendment of an agreement include power to provide for the provision to come into force although the agreement or amendment has not come into force. (11) Nothing in this section is to be construed as restricting the generality of the powers conferred by section 84A. (12) A statutory instrument which— (a) contains (whether alone or with other provision) regulations under section 84A(2), and (b) is the first exercise of the power in respect of a particular agreement, may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament. (13) A statutory instrument which— (a) contains regulations under section 84A(2), and (b) is a subsequent exercise of the power in respect of a particular agreement, is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.’ (3) In section 306 (regulations etc), in subsection (2A)(a), after ‘section’ insert ‘84A(2),’.”— (Justin Madders.) This new clause inserts into the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations to give effect to two named international maritime Conventions, and to future international agreements that relate to the employment of masters and seamen. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 2 Prison officers: inducements to withhold services “In section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (Inducements to withhold services or to indiscipline)— (a) in subsection (1), omit paragraph (a); (b) omit subsection (1A); (c) omit subsection (7).” —( Mr Bedford .) This new clause would repeal provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that prohibit inducing a prison officer to take (or continue to take) any industrial action. Brought up, and read the First time.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Let me start by explaining once again why we believe the fair work agency is so important. As we know, the current landscape for employment rights is, as was actually recognised by the previous Government, fragmented and in need of reform. I believe there is widespread agreement about that. As a Committee, we heard evidence from Margaret Beels, the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, that the current fragmentation creates a barrier to providing effective sector-wide enforcement. She noted that bringing powers together in the fair work agency would allow for better information sharing and a more flexible and adaptive approach to enforcement, enabling resources to be directed where they are most needed. Other witnesses agreed with that assessment; indeed, I recall that a huge range of witnesses at the evidence sessions spoke in favour of a single enforcement body. The CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, the British Retail Consortium, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, the Food and Drink Federation, the Co-operative or Co-op, the Women’s Budget Group and the Work Foundation all spoke in favour of a single enforcement body. The shadow Minister mentioned the impact assessment, but the Bill was in fact green-rated by the Regulatory Policy Committee. There is a commitment to keep the performance and cost of the fair work agency under review. There will be a review three years after implementation of the agency. As would be expected, merging different structures together is a complex task, so costings are still being developed at this stage. Nevertheless, securing value for money is clearly a key consideration in that process. The shadow Minister made an interesting point about behavioural change. Clearly, such change is very difficult to model in, but we hope that by establishing the fair work agency we will send a very clear signal that we expect employers to comply with the law, that the best standards should be adhered to, and that the race to the bottom should end. As a result of all that, we will see far better employment practices across the country. The fair work agency will be part of the Department for Business and Trade, so its costs will be in the Department’s accounts, which Parliament can scrutinise in the normal way. Once the agency is fully established, it will produce its own accounts as part of its reports, and those accounts will be consolidated into the Department’s annual accounts, which, of course, will also be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Consequently, I do not believe that new clause 22 would add anything to the multiple channels that are already available for parliamentarians to establish and identify the costs and benefits of the agency.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This group concerns the mandatory seafarers’ charter and amendments to international maritime convention measures. New schedule 3, and consequential amendments new clause 48 and Government amendments 206 to 208, deliver on our commitment to introduce a legally binding seafarers’ charter. The actions of P&O Ferries in 2022, when it sacked almost 800 seafarers in order to replace them with agency workers on much worse terms and conditions, highlighted the lack of protections for those working on the frequent international services that keep our country moving. We are expanding the scope of the Seafarers Wages Act 2023, which will become the Seafarers (Wages and Working Conditions) Act 2023. The Act currently makes payment of the national minimum wage equivalent for work in UK waters a condition of port access for international services that call at a UK port at least 120 times a year. It does that by requiring harbour authorities to request declarations from operators to confirm that they are paying the national minimum wage equivalent, or they will impose surcharges each time a vessel enters the port. Non-payment of surcharges will result in access to the port being refused. The new schedule introduces provisions that, once the necessary regulations have been made, will require harbour authorities to also request safe working declarations and remuneration declarations from operators in scope. Operators will be required to confirm that they are meeting the requirements of those declarations, which will be set out in regulations. We will consult on the requirements and the services they will apply to in due course. Safe working regulations can specify conditions relating to working patterns and rest requirements, including maximum periods of work and minimum periods of rest. They can also require operators to produce fatigue management plans, and make provision relating to safety training of seafarers. Remuneration regulations may specify requirements relating to the remuneration of seafarers, whether in UK waters or outside them. Where we are able to make agreements with other countries about pay on routes between us and them, this provision will allow us to enforce those agreements. Operators that provide false or misleading declarations, or act inconsistently with declarations, will be guilty of an offence under the Seafarers Wages Act. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency will be responsible for enforcing those offences, as it is for the existing provisions of the Act. The new schedule represents a proportionate and necessary approach to ensuring that the seafarers who serve our country are not subject to dangerous or unfair working conditions. It will level the playing field by setting an appropriate minimum standard for seafarers, which will ensure that good employers are not undercut by those willing to exploit their workers. I turn to new clause 52. The UK has a proud and long-standing reputation as a maritime nation, and is a leader on the global stage in matters of international maritime employment law. To maintain that position, it is crucial that we are able to keep pace with the international conventions that we have ratified and meet our future obligations. The new clause will fix a powers gap that was left following Brexit. It will give us the powers to make regulations under the negative procedure giving effect to the maritime labour convention and the work in fishing convention, and to make regulations giving effect to any other international agreements ratified in the UK relating to maritime employment. The first time that regulations are made in relation to a particular agreement, they will be subject to the affirmative procedure, and subsequent regulations relating to that agreement will be subject to the negative procedure. The new clause allows for regulations to make the necessary provisions to give effect to the conventions in question. For example, it allows for regulations to make provision relating to monitoring compliance, and to criminal offences and detention of ships for contravention of provisions in the regulations. It may not represent any changes in Government policy, but it will allow us to uphold our existing obligations and any future obligations under conventions that the UK may choose to ratify.