Justin Madders MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

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

  More

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

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

  More

  There are approximately 170,000 words in the “Oxford English Dictionary”, but I am struggling to find one to adequately encapsulate the speech by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire. It is clearly a novel approach to a Bill Committee to move an amendment and then speak against it. I do not think anything he said would have persuaded me the other way had I not already been minded to oppose the new clauses, although he did his best. It is important that we put on the record our appreciation for the work of prison officers. They work in difficult environments every day, dealing with very challenging people, and we recognise that they are critical to keeping the public safe. Under the current legislation, prison officers are prevented from taking industrial action, and their pay is governed by the independent Prison Service Pay Review Body, which acts as a compensatory mechanism for that restriction. Indeed, one of the first actions of this Government was to accept the pay review body recommendations for 2024-25, and we delivered on our commitment to launch the 2025-26 pay review body process in September, three months earlier than the previous Government did. Our written evidence to the body for the next pay round was published on 10 December, paving the way for a timely pay round. We are well positioned for that process to conclude. We need to ensure that everyone who works in a prison has the right to decent conditions and a fair reward for their hard work. The Government are committed to achieving that, but I believe that we can do so without the need for legislative change. Prison officers are essential to maintaining order and control in prisons. A withdrawal of their services, as we have heard, even if only partial, would create a risk to order and to the life and limb of individuals. There are limited contingency plans in place to deal with strike action and, during such incidents, reliance on a narrow pool of operational managers and support from the police would create risks. I am sure that Members do not need that spelling out. This would also result in significant disruption to the operation of the courts and the police, representing a significant risk to public safety. I know that the POA is very keen, understandably, to have this proposal enacted. Its representatives have met the Justice Secretary recently, and they continue to do so, and I have spoken to them. I understand their view, but we cannot agree to this at this point. I do not know whether the amendment will be pushed to a vote—I suspect that it will not be, from what the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire said—but we will not support it.

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

  More

  I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Member for West Suffolk for raising this matter, because I take it extremely seriously. I am pleased to see that he and the shadow Minister do too. It has clearly become more and more of an issue in recent years. It is based on exploitation of vulnerable individuals. It is about a race to the bottom and about a labour market that is, as Matthew Taylor identified all those years ago, fundamentally not working. That said, we are not able to accept the new clause, and I will explain why. That does not mean I am not sympathetic to it. We have been doing a number of things. I recently met the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, Margaret Beels, and the Home Office to discuss this matter. In fact, we have now met the Home Office twice on this issue, because we are aware that there are concerns about how substitution clauses in the gig economy, in particular, are operating. I have recently written to Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber, because their substitution clauses—certainly some of them—do not appear to have any cognisance of whether the substitute has the right to work in the UK. I would not say that applies to all gig economy companies—I could say “employers”, but of course they would say that they are not employers. They do not all take that view of substitution, but it is clear from what we have heard that this is not being policed properly at the moment, so we want these companies to step up and make sure that those who are working for them are entitled to do so legally, that they know who they are and that they are who they say they are, and that all the checks that we would expect any responsible employer to make have been made. The challenge is that there is a broad definition of self-employment and substitution clauses are used far more widely than the gig economy. There have been cases going back decades on whether someone has employment rights, and that often centres on the use of a substitution clause. In recent years, that has been turbocharged by gig economy companies to create this new network of workers, but there would be a number of unintended consequences in the wider economy if we accepted the new clause, because of its broadness. It would make people such as IT contractors or plumbers—indeed, there was a case involving a gym instructor who had a substitution clause—unable to provide a substitute. There are all sorts of jobs out there—many thousands and possibly millions—where substitution clauses are used perfectly well, and unfortunately, because of the way the new clause is drafted, it would mean that none of those people could continue to use them. Clearly, we would not want to see that, because it is an important part of self-employment for someone to be able to provide a substitute for their services if they are unavailable, but we recognise that the law needs modernising in this area. We have committed to consulting on a simpler, two-part framework for employment status. We think that is really important to drive out the many abuses that we have heard about. I agree with the hon. Member for West Suffolk that it should not be left to the courts to determine whether someone has particular rights. That should be set down by Parliament, and it should be clear and make sure that there is no room for loopholes. It is important that we get that right. I think that the new clause would create a whole range of unintended consequences and exclude people from carrying out their legitimate business, but I assure hon. Members that I take this matter very seriously and I am doing what I can, before we have the review, to make sure that those companies that are employing people in this way are doing so safely and responsibly.

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

  More

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

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

  More

  These clauses set out a single set of investigatory and enforcement powers that inspectors will have to carry out their job of enforcing the list of labour market legislation in part 1 of schedule 4. Clause 111 defines what constitutes non-compliance with relevant labour market legislation. It provides a clear definition of non-compliance, ensuring consistency and transparency in enforcement actions. It therefore underpins the enforcement purposes of the Bill. Clause 112 defines the key terms used throughout part 5 of the Bill relating to the governance of the fair work agency, including the concepts of the advisory board, the enforcement function and the role of an enforcement officer under clauses 75, 73 and 72, respectively. Other key terms defined by the clause include labour market enforcement undertakings and orders, “non-compliance with relevant labour market legislation” and “labour market offence”. It does not introduce any additional policy, but it is a necessary and normal part of the Bill to ensure that it is functional.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz, and I wish you a happy new year too. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I will not detain the Committee long, as I think the support from Opposition Members for the amendment is clear. Before lunch, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire asked how this measure will make things more effective. I refer him to the evidence given by a number of stakeholders, including the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, Margaret Beels, who explained that the current fragmented system makes it difficult to ensure that intelligence is shared correctly. The hon. Member for Bridgwater used the word “clandestine”. A lot of the people engaged in labour market abuses are operating under the radar, and therefore anything we can do to ensure that intelligence is shared and resources are combined has to be a good thing, so that these abuses are stamped out. Amendment 204 agreed to. Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.

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

  More

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

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 185, in schedule 6, page 141, line 33, leave out from “2025)” to end of line 2 on page 142 and insert “acting in the exercise of functions conferred on them by virtue of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984;”;”. This amendment is consequential on amendment 186.

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

  More

  Hopefully, I can put Opposition Members’ minds at rest about the need for the amendment. It is about simplifying the legislative framework. Section 19A(10A) of the 1996 Act is about disclosure of settlement terms to enforcement officers who are appointed under section 37M of that Act. As that is now being repealed by and superseded by the provisions in this Bill, particularly clauses 98 and 99, that provision is no longer required in the 1996 Act. That is why it is being removed; the current arrangements remain in place, but they will all be in one place, in this Bill. We hope that will provide clarity and certainty for those who wish to avail themselves of the rights and obligations under this legislation. Amendment 184 agreed to .

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 201, in schedule 7, page 148, line 16, at end insert— “8A “(1) This paragraph applies to information which— (a) was obtained in the course of— (i) exercising the powers conferred by section 9 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 (“the 1973 Act”), or (ii) exercising powers by virtue of section 26(1) of the Immigration Act 2016, and (b) immediately before the coming into force of paragraph 2 of Schedule 6, is held by an officer acting for the purposes of the 1973 Act. (2) On the coming into force of that paragraph, information to which this paragraph applies vests in the Secretary of State.” See the explanatory statement for Amendment 202.

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

  More

  As I said, if there is not agreement, the provisions in clauses 78, 79 and 83, which we debated last week, will come into play. On the existing framework, the powers that we have set out are already in use. The Bill will make them available to all enforcement officers. They will be used only by people who have sufficient training and oversight within the organisation. I was asked whether the code of practice will be updated. We are engaging with the Home Office on that. That is something that needs to be considered, given that the agency is being formed. The hon. Member for West Suffolk was right to ask about proportionality. We do not see that there will be any change in how the system works on an operational basis as a result of these amendments. They really are about transposing the existing powers and safeguards into the Bill. Amendment 190 agreed to. Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.

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

  More

  Schedule 6 outlines consequential amendments to other legislation and will ensure consistency with the provisions introduced by the Bill. It will also ensure that our legislative framework is cohesive and functional. The amendments will make essential technical adjustments to section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to reflect the replacement of labour abuse prevention officers with enforcement officers, as defined in part 5 of the Bill. They will update references, revise definitions and ensure consistency between this Bill and existing legislation. The amendments will avoid confusion and ensure that our statutory framework functions effectively. I commend these minor technical amendments to the Committee.

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

  More

  The shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Bridgwater asked me the “how long is a piece of string?” question—that is, how often the powers will be used. The best thing I can do is to come back to both of them with how often they have been used in recent times because, of course, there is an existing power with the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority. I was asked various questions about the use of powers, oversight and so on. Clauses 78 and 79 set out the powers that officers have. As we have discussed, we expect that these things will be the culmination of an ongoing dialogue between a particular business and the fair work agency. When there is non-compliance, these powers can be used as a last resort. Clause 83 sets out some of the oversight provisions.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 193, schedule 7, page 147, line 2, at end insert— “( ) an officer acting for the purposes of Part 2A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996;” The effect of this amendment is that the transitional provision in paragraph 6 of Schedule 7 to the Bill would apply in relation to officers acting for the purposes of Part 2A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (which relates to the enforcement of employment tribunal awards). The functions of such officers are being transferred to the Secretary of State by the Bill.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 104, in schedule 6, page 140, line 26, leave out “and (4)” and insert “, (4), (8) and (9)”. This amendment, and amendments 105 and 106, make further minor amendments of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as a result of the replacement of labour abuse prevention officers by enforcement officers under Part 5 of the Bill.

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

  More

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

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 190, in schedule 6, page 144, line 10, at end insert— “Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 92B In Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (extraction of information from electronic devices: authorised persons in relation to all purposes within section 37), after the entry relating to section 15 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 insert— ‘A person who is an enforcement officer for the purposes of Part 5 of the Employment Rights Act 2025.’” This amendment would authorise enforcement officers under Part 5 of the Bill to exercise the powers conferred by section 37 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 to extract information stored on electronic devices for the purposes of, among other things, criminal investigations. Government amendment 190 is another technical amendment to ensure continuity and effectiveness of the enforcement power under section 37 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The Bill provides the building blocks for us to set up the fair work agency, which involves transferring enforcement functions that are currently split between multiple bodies, including the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority. The GLAA office currently exercises its power across the UK under section 37 of the 2022 Act. Without this amendment, enforcement officers in England, Wales and Scotland would not have access to critical investigatory powers under that Act. Only officers enforcing the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 in Northern Ireland would retain those powers, creating an unjustifiable enforcement gap. Investigations increasingly rely on access to electronic data, such as payroll records and communication logs. Excluding fair work agency officers from these powers would severely hinder their ability to obtain critical information, leaving them ill-equipped to tackle non-compliance and labour exploitation effectively. The amendment ensures that enforcement powers remain consistent across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, aligning with the policy aim of the fair work agency to deliver robust and uniform enforcement. Fair work agency officers would exercise the section 37 power in relation to labour market offences. That expands the scope of the power, as currently the power is exercised by GLAA officers only in connection with enforcement of the 2004 Act. This amendment would mean that the power is used by fair work agency officers to enforce the broader range of legislation under their remit, which means that the power could be exercised in relation to any labour market offence, instead of just offences under the 2004 Act. That will prevent any disparity in enforcement capabilities that could undermine efforts to protect vulnerable workers and uphold compliance. This amendment corrects a minor technical oversight during the drafting process, ensuring that the legislation accurately reflects operational needs. It aligns with the overarching policy intention to ensure that there is no reduction in enforcement capability as enforcement bodies transfer into the fair work agency, and it directly addresses concerns and strengthens the Bill’s overall effectiveness. In conclusion, this amendment is essential to prevent enforcement gaps, ensure parity across jurisdictions, and equip enforcement officers with the tools that they need to combat exploitation in the modern economy.

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

  More

  The schedule sets out transitional and savings provisions. It ensures a smooth changeover from the existing enforcement framework to the new provisions introduced by the Bill. That is of course important because it makes our legislative framework cohesive and functional. Government amendment 191 is a necessary technical provision to ensure that the transition of enforcement responsibilities under part 5 of the Bill is well ordered. By clarifying that actions taken not just “by” but “in relation” to enforcement officers will continue to have effect as if done in relation to the Secretary of State, we are safeguarding a continuity in enforcement processes and ensuring no disruption to ongoing cases or decisions, which I am sure Members will be relieved to hear. Government amendment 192 makes a consequential change to align with Government amendment 191, and Government amendments 197 and 200 make minor drafting changes in schedule 7. They do not affect the substance of the Bill, but they improve its clarity and accuracy. I hope that hon. Members will support what I imagine are uncontroversial amendments and support achieving the aim of ensuring continuity and cohesiveness as we move forward. On that note, I commend the amendments to the Committee.

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

  More

  That was quite a lengthy debate for a technical amendment. This amendment to schedule 6 will ensure continuity of function, which was one of the main points that the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Bridgwater made. We are alive to their concern that there is a hole through which provisions can fall: there are a number of amendments to make sure that there is continuity of legal force and in the ability to carry out the functions of the predecessor authorities. Both hon. Members asked about redundancies. It is premature to talk about operational matters of that nature. The impact assessment is being carried out on the basis of the existing budgets of the relevant agencies. No reduction in staff members is anticipated, but as we move forward, efficiencies and duplications may become apparent when the agencies are merged, which may lead to other changes to the way in which matters are carried out, and those will clearly be dealt with. There was a concern that the reorganisation could lead to disruption, which is certainly not our intention. We expect the agencies to be able to continue to carry out existing investigations—indeed, many of the amendments are being made with that in mind to ensure that continuity is preserved. I remind Opposition Members that the purpose of the fair work agency is to ensure that intelligence is shared and resources are pooled so that we can be more effective in our labour market abuse enforcement mechanisms. That has been widely supported across the entire group of stakeholders. In terms of oversight, there will be an advisory board, reports and strategies and the Secretary of State will be answerable to Parliament for the work of the fair work agency. We will no doubt return to that on a number of occasions as the detail is fleshed out. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Amendment 183 agreed to . Amendments made: 102, in schedule 6, page 137, line 13, at end insert— “(3A) In the italic heading before paragraph 10, omit “of Authority”.” This amendment makes a minor drafting correction. Amendment 103, in schedule 6, page 137, line 15, leave out “the heading and”.— (Justin Madders.) This is consequential on amendment 102.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 184, in schedule 6, page 141, line 7, at end insert— “Employment Tribunals Act 1996 70A In section 19A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (conciliation: recovery of sums payable under settlements), omit subsection (10A).” This amendment provides for a minor consequential amendment relating to Part 5 of the Bill.

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

  More

  I am grateful to Opposition Members for raising those questions. I can reassure them that this is not about creating new powers, either for enforcement officers or for the IOPC. It is about transferring the existing responsibility that the IOPC has for designated officers with police-style powers to the fair work agency. The discussions have been on the basis that there would not be any additional resource implications for the IOPC. Obviously, if that were to change in due course, when the fair work agency is under way, there would be discussions about that. It is simply about the existing powers under section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act being applicable to the enforcement officers of the fair work agency on exactly the same basis as they are now. I hope that that has put Opposition Members’ minds at rest. On that note, I commend the amendments to the Committee. Amendment 185 agreed to. Amendments made: 187, in schedule 6, page 142, line 3, after “(3)” insert “— (i) after paragraph (bc) insert— ‘(bca) any regulations under section 26CA of this Act (enforcement officers appointed under Employment Rights Act 2025);’; (ii)”. See the explanatory statement for amendment 186. Amendment 186, in schedule 6, page 142, line 3, at end insert— “(2A) After section 26C insert— ‘26CA Enforcement officers appointed under Employment Rights Act 2025 (1) The Secretary of State may make regulations conferring functions on the Director General in relation to enforcement officers acting in the exercise of functions conferred on them by virtue of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. (2) In this section “enforcement officer” means a person appointed by the Secretary of State under section 72 of the Employment Rights Act 2025. (3) Regulations under this section may, in particular— (a) apply (with or without modifications), or make provision similar to, any provision of or made under this Part; (b) make provision for payment by the Secretary of State to, or in respect of, the Office or in respect of the Director General. (4) The Director General and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration may jointly investigate a matter in relation to which— (a) the Director General has functions by virtue of this section, and (b) the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration has functions by virtue of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. (5) The Secretary of State or an enforcement officer may disclose information to the Director General, or to a person acting on the Director General’s behalf, for the purposes of the exercise by the Director General, or by any person acting on the Director General’s behalf, of a relevant complaints function. (6) The Director General and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration may disclose information to each other for the purposes of the exercise of a function— (a) by virtue of this section, or (b) under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. (7) Regulations under this section may, in particular, make— (a) further provision about the disclosure of information under subsection (5) or (6); (b) provision about the further disclosure of information that has been so disclosed. (8) A disclosure of information authorised by this section does not breach— (a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure, or (b) any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed). (9) But this section does not authorise a disclosure of information that— (a) would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether a disclosure would do so, the power conferred by this section is to be taken into account), or (b) is prohibited by any of Parts 1 to 7 or Chapter 1 of Part 9 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. (10) In this section— “the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act); “relevant complaints function” means a function in relation to the exercise of functions by enforcement officers.’” This amendment and amendment 187 would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling the Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct to deal with complaints and misconduct relating to enforcement officers who are exercising police powers. Amendment 188, in schedule 6, page 143, line 19, leave out “subsection” and insert “subsections (4) and”. This amendment is consequential on amendment 184. Amendment 189, in schedule 6, page 144, line 10, at end insert— “Sentencing Act 2020 92A In section 379(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020 (other behaviour orders etc), after the entry for the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 insert— ‘ Employment Rights Act 2025 section 90 labour market enforcement order labour market offence within the meaning of Part 5 of that Act.’” — (Justin Madders.) This amendment makes a consequential amendment to the Sentencing Act 2020 to include labour market enforcement orders in the list of orders that may be made on conviction by a criminal court but are not dealt with in that Act.

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

  More

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

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 183, in schedule 6, page 135, line 6, leave out “‘Secretary of State’.” and insert “‘Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority or the Secretary of State’.” This amendment would ensure that section 12(2) of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, which makes it an offence for a person to be in possession or control of a “relevant document” that is false or has been improperly obtained with the intention of inducing someone to believe that the person has a licence under that Act, continues to apply in respect of documents issued by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in connection with a licence before its abolition. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Mundell. As is customary, I refer to my declaration of interests and to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The amendment is essential to upholding legal continuity and to preventing any ambiguity or loopholes in enforcement. It will ensure that provisions under the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 remain enforceable. Without the amendment, there is a risk that any improper conduct in relation to documents issued before the abolition of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority could fall outside the scope of enforcement. Fraudulent licences have been used to exploit vulnerable workers and to mislead employers, particularly in industries such as agriculture and food processing. The amendment will strengthen deterrence against document fraud and ensure that enforcement agencies retain the tools that they need to protect workers effectively.

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

  More

  I believe I have already addressed the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Bridgwater on several occasions this morning, although I take his points. Amendment 203 agreed to .

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 204, in schedule 7, page 148, line 28, at end insert— “10A (1) Where— (a) a slavery and trafficking prevention order requires a person to notify the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in accordance with section 19 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (“the 2015 Act”), and (b) immediately before the day on which paragraph 53 of Schedule 6 comes into force, that requirement has not been complied with, that requirement has effect, on and after that day, as a requirement to notify the Secretary of State. (2) On and after the coming into force of paragraph 54 of Schedule 6, the reference in section 20(2)(g) of the 2015 Act (as amended by that paragraph) to a slavery and trafficking prevention order made on an application under section 15 of that Act by the Secretary of State includes a reference to such an order made on an application under that section by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority. (3) In this paragraph “slavery and trafficking prevention order” has the same meaning as in the 2015 Act. 10B (1) Where— (a) a slavery and trafficking risk order requires a person to notify the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in accordance with section 26 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (“the 2015 Act”), and (b) immediately before the day on which paragraph 56 of Schedule 6 comes into force, that requirement has not been complied with, that requirement has effect, on and after that day, as a requirement to notify the Secretary of State. (2) On and after the coming into force of paragraph 57 of Schedule 6, the reference in section 27(2)(g) of the 2015 Act (as amended by that paragraph) to a slavery and trafficking risk order made on an application under section 23 of that Act by the Secretary of State includes a reference to such an order made on an application under that section by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority. (3) In this paragraph “slavery and trafficking risk order” has the same meaning as in the 2015 Act.” This amendment contains transitional provision to ensure that, once the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 have been transferred to the Secretary of State, that Act continues to operate as intended. The amendment is essential to ensure the seamless and effective operation of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 during the transition of functions from the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority to the Secretary of State. At its core, it is about continuity and clarity. Slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders are critical tools in the fight against modern slavery. They impose important requirements on individuals for the purpose of protecting people from being victims of modern slavery, including requirements to notify enforcement authorities, and those obligations must remain enforceable. Without the amendment, there is a clear risk that existing legal obligations could become unclear, creating loopholes for offenders to exploit. The amendment ensures that notification requirements transfer seamlessly to the Secretary of State, safeguarding our ability to hold individuals accountable and protect victims of exploitation. It also ensures that where an application is made to vary, renew or discharge a slavery and trafficking order, the courts can treat orders originally made by the GLAA as if they had been made by the Secretary of State. That provides legal certainty for courts, enforcement agencies and affected individuals alike. This is a technical but vital amendment that protects the integrity of the legal framework and ensures continuity.