← Back to House of Commons Debates
Employment Rights Bill 2025-09-15
15 September 2025
Lead MP
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade
Debate Type
Ministerial Statement
Tags
EconomyEmployment
Other Contributors: 66
At a Glance
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade raised concerns about employment rights bill 2025-09-15 in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Government Statement
I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment 22, as part of the Employment Rights Bill. This landmark Bill is pro-worker and pro-business, supporting the Government’s objectives of boosting growth and improving living standards across the country. It updates employment law to fit the current age and rewards good employers while extending protections given by the best to millions more workers. The amendments made in another place reinforce existing measures in the Bill by closing loopholes and ensuring comprehensive functionality. Businesses like R & W Scott Ltd, a leading UK manufacturer based in south Lancashire, and large companies such as Co-op, Centrica, and Richer Sounds support this legislation because it benefits both employees and employers.
Luke Evans
Con
Hinckley and Bosworth
Question
Can the Secretary of State point to a small or medium-sized business that actually supports this Bill?
Minister reply
Many businesses have now come out in support of the Bill. I can give an example of both a small business, R & W Scott Ltd, and a large one, Co-op, which are supportive.
Chris Vince
Lab/Co-op
Harlow
Question
Will my right hon. Friend recognise the huge amount of employment that IKEA provides in this country, and welcome its foreign investment? Does he agree that IKEA welcomes this legislation because it realises that supporting its staff leads to better productivity and more loyalty to the company?
Minister reply
I congratulate my hon. Friend on being a champion for investment in our country, unlike the Conservative party which did down the country while it was in government.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
Question
Will the Secretary of State do more to engage with chambers of commerce about their concerns regarding tribunal involvement in dismissing employees during probation period, removal of statutory sick pay waiting days, and changes to trade union recognition?
Minister reply
The Bill reflects the best standards already used by most employers. On consultation, this is a Government who listen constantly, and we will continue to listen.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Question
How will this Bill support small businesses that cannot afford to pay sick pay as well as hire someone in the place of the sick?
Minister reply
A healthy workforce is a productive workforce. We intend to ensure the health and wellbeing of employees, and to ensure support for them in the workplace, structured in a way to get the very best out of them.
Andy McDonald
Lab
Middlesbrough and Thornaby East
Question
Does my right hon. Friend agree that during covid people had to turn up at work despite being poorly, contributing to the spread of the pandemic? Does this not illustrate the need for a sickness absence framework?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. Both in times of crisis and in good times, there are good employers and those who sometimes fall beneath standards.
Andrew Murrison
Con
South West Wiltshire
Question
Does the Secretary of State agree with the Attorney General that such powers strike at the heart of the rule of law?
Minister reply
I agree that such powers need to be used wisely. The House will notice that many clauses provide for guidance in primary legislation during the implementation phase, and consultation with businesses and workers affected by the Bill.
Dwyfor Meirionnydd
Question
Will the Government consider amendment 61 again which would allow people under the age of 16 to volunteer on heritage railway lines?
Minister reply
I will come to that amendment specifically, so I think it is best that I leave the answer until then.
Susan Murray
LD
Mid Dunbartonshire
Question
My husband suffered a catastrophic brain haemorrhage and started working under a zero-hours contract to adjust hours based on his recovery. The practical solution is to give staff a right to request a zero-hours contract, rather than replacing a requirement for businesses to offer such contracts.
Minister reply
I understand the hon. Lady's point about flexibility but feel that putting the onus on employees to request, rather than employers to deliver, would alienate several categories of workers, particularly younger workers and those with vulnerabilities.
Chris Law
SNP
Dundee Central
Question
Why will we have to wait nearly three years before getting a response on requiring employers to give employees at least 48 hours’ notice for zero-hour contracts?
Minister reply
We are consulting on those powers and based on the outcome, we will report back showing that we are listening. We will learn from the consultation and if necessary, we will act.
Sarah Bool
Con
South Northamptonshire
Question
When the Minister consults on those powers, will he include the agricultural sector where seasonal work can be a concern?
Minister reply
The Bill allows flexibility for sectors such as agriculture. However, if the hon. Lady would like to write to me with further updates, I am always willing to listen.
Desmond Swayne
Con
New Forest West
Question
Seasonality in hospitality and boat building means scheduling for guaranteed hours is very difficult. Will the Bill address this?
Minister reply
The Bill refers to exploitative zero-hours contracts but allows flexibility for non-exploitative circumstances. We will consult on the time threshold to ensure it reflects the seasonal nature of work.
Damian Hinds
Con
East Hampshire
Question
Will the reference period used to calculate hours reflect the seasonality in sectors like hospitality, tourism, and farming?
Minister reply
We are consulting on the time threshold to ensure it reflects seasonal work needs. The Bill strikes a balance, curbing misuse while allowing fair businesses time for adaptation.
Maureen Burke
Lab
Glasgow North East
Question
Will the Government resist attempts to water down this legislation and introduce it in full?
Minister reply
I reassure my hon. Friend that as long as they vote Labour, such watering-down will never happen.
Wolverhampton North East
Question
Does the Secretary of State agree that Lords amendment 121 is unnecessary?
Minister reply
The Bill already ensures no negotiating body can prevent employers from offering better terms and conditions. The amendment would add needless bureaucracy and could impede flexibility.
Susan Murray
Lab
Question
I think Lords amendment 1 adds more flexibility so that people get the opportunity to have employment that suits them, particularly important for those getting off disability benefits.
Minister reply
The Bill includes flexibilities, but changing the onus to an employee request could hinder vulnerable workers' access to their rights. It is crucial that employers clarify these rights.
Ian Roome
Liberal Democrats
North Devon
Question
Does the Secretary of State agree that having a shift cancelled at short notice would be bad news for many workers across the country?
Minister reply
The Government believe 48 hours is generally sufficient, but the consultation will determine an appropriate notice period that balances business and worker needs.
James Wild
Con
North West Norfolk
Question
Why was no modelling done before reducing the unfair dismissal qualifying period from two years to six months?
Minister reply
The Government have engaged with trade unions and other bodies, informed by experience, to ensure the right balance between workforce protections and business needs.
Joshua Reynolds
Liberal Democrats
Maidenhead
Question
Given that Unite's general secretary criticised Birmingham for using fire and rehire practices, when will Labour inform their colleagues about this?
Minister reply
The Bill aims to ensure every employer operates under the same legislative framework to prevent unfair dismissal practices such as fire and rehire.
Desmond Swayne
Con
Wareham
Question
What can be said to those in the boatbuilding industry concerned about protection from day one of employment?
Minister reply
Employers will have a basic six-month probation period with an option for extension, ensuring that performance standards are fair and realistic.
Andy McDonald
Lab
Hillington and Priesthill
Question
Can the Secretary of State provide more detail on how the statutory probation period will be managed?
Minister reply
The Government will consult to ensure a light-touch approach, allowing for flexibility in extending probation periods where necessary.
Constituency not specified
Question
I remind the Secretary of State that his advice to heritage railways may inadvertently encourage them to break existing laws regarding youth volunteering. If legal action arises from this, how will he address it?
Minister reply
The Government’s position is based on clear legal advice and we believe the current law allows for appropriate roles in heritage railways when managed properly, as seen in successful schemes like Swanage.
Peter Kyle
Lab
Hove
Question
This matter has caused significant concern and examination. Can you assure me that the Government’s advice is indeed clear on this issue?
Minister reply
We have closely examined the legal situation and believe it is fit for purpose without amendments, though I am always open to further discussions regarding specific cases.
Gareth Snell
Lab/Co-op
Stoke-on-Trent Central
Question
Will the hon. Member give way to discuss organisations that will represent employees?
Minister reply
I am happy to give way if the hon. Gentleman discusses how other organisations can effectively represent employees, not just trade unions.
Justin Madders
Lab
Ellesmere Port and Bromborough
Question
If legal representation is expanded in tribunals, won't this increase costs for firms?
Minister reply
The amendment would provide individuals with choice regarding their representation. While this could involve hiring lawyers, the point is about ensuring fair access to support rather than increasing costs unnecessarily.
Justin Madders
Lab
Ellesmere Port and Bromborough
Question
Why oppose amendments that protect seasonal work and zero-hours contracts?
Minister reply
The Government opposes these amendments because they impose unnecessary restrictions on business flexibility, particularly for seasonal industries and those relying on temporary staffing arrangements.
Sarah Edwards
Lab
Tamworth
Question
Committed the Secretary of State for Business and Trade on supporting working families by ensuring day one unfair dismissal rights as promised in the manifesto. She asked if he agreed with his stance on this provision.
Minister reply
The Secretary affirmed that day one unfair dismissal rights are crucial to provide basic employment protections immediately, emphasising employer's ability to dismiss after a probationary period through a lighter-touch procedure.
Katrina Murray
SNP
Constituency Unspecified
Question
Does the hon. Lady not think that a hospital catering worker who works 36 hours a week but is paid for only 12 deserves respect and a contract for her actual working hours?
Minister reply
If the hon. Lady supported Lords amendment 1, the catering worker would have a right to request fixed-hours contracts, which would offer certainty without imposing administrative burdens on employers.
Laurence Turner
Lab
Birmingham Northfield
Question
Does the hon. Member agree that fair notice may vary by industry? What is fair in retail might differ from what is fair for offshore oil rig workers.
Minister reply
Forty-eight hours' notice is reasonable and applies uniformly across all sectors, providing clarity while ensuring workers are compensated appropriately.
Scott Arthur
Lab
Edinburgh South West
Question
Has the hon. Member discussed with organisations representing single parents how amendments will impact their ability to access fair notice periods for childcare?
Minister reply
Forty-eight hours is a reasonable compromise and vital for clarity, though not ideal in all situations.
Ian Roome
Lab
Constituency Unspecified
Question
Does the hon. Friend agree that this Bill would be a good opportunity to put real protections in place for whistleblowers who try to highlight crime, danger, and malpractice?
Minister reply
The current framework only applies if someone loses their job and does not address serious concerns about crimes; thus, updating our once-leading whistleblowing legislation is urgent.
Ian Lavery
Lab
Blyth and Ashington
Question
I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my support of the trade unions. On the thresholds, does my hon. Friend agree that those who choose to abstain should be counted as “no” votes?
Minister reply
I am slightly surprised to be referred to as “hon. Friend”, not least because I am probably going to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. To undertake such massive action, including in the NHS, and on the tube—we saw the level of disruption that that caused the public last week—there needs to be a positive vote in favour of strike action, which is why I back this amendment.
Ian Lavery
Lab
Blyth and Ashington
Question
You haven’t understood my point.
Minister reply
I am happy to take another intervention. I simply mean that if there is a threshold of 50% and it is not met, are those who did not participate in the ballot classed as “no” votes? Is that correct? It is pretty simple.
Ian Lavery
Lab
Blyth and Ashington
Minister reply
I think the point that the hon. Gentleman is making is that people who did not express a view either way should be counted as voting against. What I am saying is that in order to justify the levels of disruption that strike action has caused recently, it is important that a trade union can demonstrate that it has majority support from its workforce.
Tristan Osborne
Lab
Chatham and Aylesford
Question
I welcome the Government amendments, and thank those who have steered the legislation to this point. This is a generational upgrade in employment rights, and as a Labour MP, I am very proud to support it. It is a landmark shift in some ways—a declaration that in modern Britain, hard work should be rewarded with decent, stable work, security, dignity and fairness.
Tristan Osborne
Lab
Chatham and Aylesford
Question
I have concerns about Lords amendment 1. Zero-hours contracts have allowed people to be trapped by insecure work, low pay and one-sided flexibility. I know from speaking to shop workers in my constituency that they have not been able to plan ahead with their finances because of the unscrupulous nature of some working relationships with employers.
Tristan Osborne
Lab
Chatham and Aylesford
Question
The Government’s measures to ensure zero-hours contracts are controlled—where the individual can request zero-hours contracts but there is an onus on the employer to support guaranteed hours—strike the correct balance. I therefore reject Lords amendment 1 as the Government’s measures strike a fair balance between the employee requesting and the employer giving.
Solihull West and Shirley
Question
I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to two specific Lords amendments proposed in turn by Lord Burns and Lord Sharpe in the other place. While addressing different clauses, both amendments essentially come down to the same principle: defending fairness, transparency and democratic legitimacy against narrow sectional interests.
Solihull West and Shirley
Question
On Lords amendment 61, in 2016, after long and at times fraught debate, Parliament reached a carefully constructed settlement on the question of trade union political funds. That settlement was not only fair and balanced but, crucially, was broadly accepted by all sides.
John Cooper
Con
Dumfries and Galloway
Question
Sadly, we are not here to relitigate this entire Bill, which is so wide in scope and impact, and yet so skimpy in detail, having been cobbled together for a headline under Labour’s “first 100 days” banner. I refer the House to Lords amendment 61... The reasons why demonstrate the wider issue with the Bill...
Michael Wheeler
Lab
Worsley and Eccles
Question
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to my proud membership of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the GMB... For well over a decade, working people have been calling for the protections that this landmark piece of legislation will introduce. It is our duty to deliver them...
Ashley Fox
Con
Bridgwater
Question
I am speaking in favour of the Government amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 21, which commits the Government to reviewing whether to add special constables to the list of roles that entitle an employee to request unpaid time off work from their employer under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The amendment addresses the falling numbers of special constables and aims to strengthen community policing.
Minister reply
The Secretary of State has not directly answered Sir Ashley Fox, but through his statement, he implies support for reviewing the inclusion of special constables in section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Question
I urge the House to reject Lords amendments that would weaken the rights and protections the Bill seeks to deliver. On Lords amendment 1, moving from a duty on employers to proactively offer secure contracts to a model where workers must request them undermines the purpose of the Bill.
Minister reply
The Secretary of State has not directly answered Andy McDonald but through his statement he emphasises rejecting amendments that weaken employment rights and protecting vulnerable workers.
Damian Hinds
Con
East Hampshire
Question
Suggests further clarification on how heritage railways can operate without violating outdated legislation meant for industrial settings and volunteers. Also discusses the necessity of zero-hours contracts in certain sectors, such as NHS bank staff and hospitality.
Minister reply
Acknowledges Damian Hinds' points and commits to working on providing further guidance for heritage railways.
Peter Kyle
Lab
Hove
Question
Responds positively to the suggestion of providing more details about how heritage railways can operate without violating outdated legislation.
Minister reply
Welcomes the positive response and commits to working on it.
Chris Law
SNP
Question
I thank the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for her brave and personal testimony, and for sharing the testimonies of many others on the importance of bereavement leave.
Jo White
Lab
Bassetlaw
Question
Referencing her entry in the Register of Members' Financial Interests and highlighting levels of pay and working conditions in Bassetlaw, she emphasised that the Employment Rights Bill will bring fairness and rights to workers, ensuring they are treated with dignity and respect. She criticised Reform for opposing the bill and aligning itself with corporate interests.
Question
Welcoming the new Secretary of State to his place, he thanked him for opening the debate. He spoke against Lords amendments 121, 11 and 1, highlighting drafting weaknesses in amendment 121 that would alter the nature of the proposed school support staff negotiating body.
Laurence Turner
Lab
Question
Laurence Turner provided detailed comments on several Lords amendments, discussing their potential impact and the history of support for these measures among his party. He emphasised that the Labour manifesto committed to implementing basic rights from day one, including parental leave, sick pay, and protection from unfair dismissal. He also expressed concerns about the impact of specific amendments on zero-hours contracts and workers' rights.
Rachel Taylor
Lab
North Warwickshire and Bedworth
Question
Acknowledged the compelling evidence heard by the Women and Equalities Committee earlier this year about misogyny in the music industry, highlighting that people classed as 'workers' need protection.
Sam Rushworth
Lab
Question
Spoke on behalf of his constituents who feel insecure at work due to exploitative zero-hours contracts and lack of employment rights. He highlighted the Labour party's 12-year-old commitment to end such practices.
Sam Rushworth
Lab
Bishop Auckland
No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.
John Slinger
Lab
Rugby
Question
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. He quite rightly mentioned that the Reform UK Members are not in their place, and does he agree with me that this really is a travesty? When we think about the social media posts that they put out and the grand speeches they give up and down this land, does he agree with me that it really is a travesty for them to claim to be on the side of working people when they have the audacity to vote in this House against a Bill introduced by a Labour Government on the side of working people?
Minister reply
It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that I completely agree with that assessment. They are clearly not on the side of my constituents or the people I am talking about, who just do not feel that they can assert their rights. Too many feel completely powerless, so it is right that we put the onus where it is.
Question
On accessing the rights in the Bill, does my hon. Friend agree that, for people going about their busy daily lives at work and possibly struggling to make ends meet, there is a fundamental difference between a right to a contract with guaranteed hours and a right to request one?
Minister reply
There is a difference. My hon. Friend is an expert in this field, having come to us from USDAW, and I know that those who worked on the Bill will have thought this through carefully. It certainly chimes with my experience. People should not need to have to request and assert their rights; they should be given those rights.
No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.
Gareth Snell
Lab
Question
Does my hon. Friend agree that when Conservative Members oppose day one rights, they are not really worried about the day on which the rights start; they are actually opposed to the rights?
Minister reply
I agree, especially if we look at unfair dismissal. The issue is not the cause of the dismissal; at its core, this is about denying people recourse.
Euan Stainbank
Lab
Question
Does my hon. Friend agree that a two-year threshold often leads to workers being taken out of the workplace without process or prior warning?
Minister reply
I have seen this happen in hospitality and retail industries, where people are pushed out after working for 23 months instead of two years.
Ashley Fox
Con
Bridgwater
Question
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many small businesses are fearful of day one rights because they worry about employment tribunals and costs involved?
Minister reply
I disagree with the characterisation of the Bill as increasing unemployment; however, I acknowledge the concerns raised by small businesses.
Michael Wheeler
Lab
Question
Does my hon. Friend agree that a large part of the fear we see is due to scaremongering and misinformation spread by Opposition Members?
Minister reply
I fully agree on the misinformation being put out about hypothetical situations, which are often talked about when we discuss hospitality.
Sam Rushworth
Lab
Question
Does my hon. Friend agree that the measures in the Bill to make people safer and more protected at work will improve mental wellbeing and productivity, and be good for economic growth?
Minister reply
I fully agree that the economic benefit of security in the workplace is evident; insecure labour markets lead to higher sickness rates and lower productivity.
Laurence Turner
Lab
Question
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case, but I rise merely to support what he is saying.
Minister reply
I thank my colleague for his support; long-term sickness translates into long-term unemployment in the most insecure workplaces.
Suella Braverman
Con
Fareham and Waterlooville
Question
Does the hon. Gentleman think that expert voices urging caution about the Bill are misinformation and scaremongering?
Minister reply
While acknowledging concerns, I believe the Bill is a fundamental rebalancing in favour of workers and necessary to change perceptions of work.
Question
How important is tipping the balance in favour of employees, when there have been cases of exploitation through zero-hours contracts and sexual abuse at work? The measures proposed are a vital part of the legislation.
Minister reply
The dynamic in the workplace needs to be addressed. Zero-hour contracts put too much power in the hands of employers over employees. Measures such as notice of cancellation clauses will help address these issues, providing legitimate flexibility and acknowledging the need for change.
Question
The shadow Secretary of State claimed that the Bill was a bad day for democracy but since it was in the manifesto that won the trust of the public, this is actually a good day for democracy.
Minister reply
The Employment Rights Bill is part of delivering on promises made to the people. It has been exhaustively debated and will benefit millions of workers across the country.
Question
How do you respond to criticisms about voting percentage thresholds and employment tribunal delays during Conservative government?
Minister reply
We reject lectures from those who increased employment tribunal delays by 60% under their rule. Our Bill aims to protect workers' rights, unlike parties that oppose such measures.
Question
What will the consultation on non-disclosure arrangements cover and what is the timeline?
Minister reply
The consultation will cover expanding types of individuals and measures beyond those defined as 'employee' or 'worker'. It will also include conditions for excepted NDAs, allowing victims to speak about harassment and discrimination. The exact timetable cannot be provided tonight but it's a personal priority and we'll move fast.
Question
Why is there a pattern of Reform Members not speaking in the debate despite their stance on scrapping thousands of laws, including employment laws?
Minister reply
It is unsurprising that members of Reform do not defend stripping workers of rights and dignity. Their absence suggests they have no real justification for their stance.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.