It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under you, Sir Christopher. I draw Members’ attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—and the GMB. The hon.

Member for Bridgwater is making a powerful case. Were the Government to accept his new clause, would he support the Bill as a whole?

That would not be quite enough to offset the £5 billion-worth of costs for small and medium-sized enterprises. The advantage of the new clause is that it would not cost either the taxpayer or employers any money. However, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution.

The truth is that, currently, many people simply do not have the time to offer to the role without employer support. The measure I propose would make it easier for specials to perform their duties and, I hope, help recruitment.

Unlike so many of the proposals in the Bill, it would not cost either employers or the taxpayer any money. I am pleased that this campaign has the support of the Association of Special Constabulary Officers and more than a dozen MPs from Government and Opposition.

We also have the endorsement of 10 police and crime commissioners. Importantly, Assistant Chief Constable Bill Dutton, acting in his capacity as the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for the special constabulary, has provided his written support for including special constables under section 50.

The Minister has received letters from hon. Members in all parts of the House, and I believe that some of his ministerial colleagues, too, may have received letters or held meetings with Government Back Benchers.

The new clause could help with the recruitment and retention of many new special constables and it would make our streets safer.

It would also finally recognise the work of the specials and put them on the same footing as the thousands of other people in this country who are allowed time off work to complete valuable civic duties. I ask the Minister to consider that.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I rise to strongly support the new clause.

We have seen throughout our debates in Committee that there are opportunities for changing the weather around our employment world, whether it is around foster carers, adoption or volunteering—the subject of new clause 38, championed by my hon.

Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster), which we will discuss later. I hope that this new clause falls on fertile ground because, as the hon. Member for Bridgwater has highlighted, volunteering across the piece has significantly reduced.

We need to change the weather around the employment world and make sure that people feel able and confident to volunteer, as we know that policing is a particular challenge. I welcome the Government’s plans to invest in neighbourhood policing. Special officers are often involved in that.

People feel confident when they see a uniformed officer on the street. The public do not care whether it is a paid officer or a special officer; it is a trusted individual. The more we can drive that agenda, as I know from my residents in Torbay, the more it will be welcomed.

I look forward to a strong endorsement from the Minister.

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

We have had various discussions within the Department. Information has gone over to the Home Office, and we are waiting for a response. Obviously, I cannot speak for the Home Office, so I cannot set out its position.

As I say, I think it is time more generally to consider all the legislation relating to the right to time off for public duties. It is too soon to accept this new clause, but I hope the hon. Member for Bridgwater is assured that we are taking this issue seriously and considering it.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause is an opportunity to extend carer’s leave across the whole of Great Britain. I hope it falls on more fertile ground than the previous new clause. There are 10.6 million carers across the United Kingdom, yet only 2.

5 million are actually in paid employment. That shows that, although some of those carers may be beyond or even below working age, there is still a significant untapped pool of opportunity to drive productivity in our economy.

The economic growth figures released this morning show that the handbrake is sadly still on in our economy due to the appalling state that the Labour party inherited from the previous Government, so we need to think about how to allow people to work in our economy as strongly as possible.

Centrica has found that there is an £8 billion cost to our economy for those who choose to leave the workplace due to having caring commitments. This would potentially allow a goodly number of those to remain in the workplace and continue to contribute.

Although this is a probing amendment, I hope the Minister will give it some serious consideration and advise the Committee on what exploration the Government may choose to undertake of this golden opportunity for us as a society.

I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular my membership of the National Education Union and USDAW.

New clause 35 would commit the Government to introducing an entitlement for employees with caring responsibilities, to be paid at their usual wage level, while taking carer’s leave. It would give carers an entitlement of up to a week of paid leave and require employers to cover the cost.

I want to underline that the Government are absolutely committed to supporting employed unpaid carers. In the October 2024 Budget, we increased the earnings disregard for carers from £151 to £196, meaning that they can earn up to £196 without losing any of their carer’s allowance.

In effect, that means that they can work 16 hours a week at the national living wage. We have two concerns about the new clause. First, it would introduce significant new costs for employers without giving consideration to the potential impact on businesses, in particular small ones.

Secondly, under the proposed approach, individuals taking carer’s leave would be treated more favourably than employees taking other forms of leave to care for family members, such as maternity or paternity leave, where a flat statutory rate is available.

There is no clear rationale for taking a different approach, and it could raise questions about differential treatment of different groups. For those reasons, the Government do not support the new clause.

However, supporting carers who want to work alongside managing their caring responsibilities is an important element of our plans to modernise the world of work, which will ensure that there are good jobs for carers and a skilled workforce for employers.

The Carer’s Leave Act 2023 gave employed carers a new right to time off work to care for a dependant with long-term care needs. We will review that measure and consider whether any further support is required. That will include looking at potential options for paid leave.

The review will draw on evidence from carers and employers and learn from their experiences, so that we can understand what is working in the current system and identify where improvements may be needed.

Through that work, we will also engage closely with smaller employers and sector bodies to ensure that we fully understand the potential impacts and benefits that further policy development could bring for them.

It is right that we allow the review to run its course to enable an evidence-based decision on whether there is more we can do to support working carers while balancing impacts on businesses. I heard what the hon.

Member for Torbay said about the new clause being a probing amendment, and I hope that what I have said gives him reassurance about our commitment to that review. I therefore invite him to withdraw the new clause.

I thank the Minister for her encouraging words. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 37 Right to be accompanied “(1) Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (right to be accompanied) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (3), after paragraph (b) insert— ‘(ba) a person who has been reasonably certified in writing by a Professional Body as having experience of, or as having received training in, acting as a worker’s companion at disciplinary or grievance hearings, or’ (3) After subsection (7) insert— ‘(8) In this section, “Professional Body” means any organisation, which is authorised by a regulation made by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (9).

(9) The Secretary of State may make a regulation or regulations authorising any organisation as a Professional Body for the purposes of this section.’”—(Steve Darling.) This new clause would expand the right to be accompanied by a certified companion at disciplinary and grievance hearings.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

The new clause would ensure that workers in the early stages of an employment dispute, such as a disciplinary or grievance hearing, can be supported by those who are qualified, rather than just by trade union representatives or similar colleagues.

It would allow for matters to be brought to a head much sooner and prevent cases from necessarily going to tribunal, which clogs up the tribunal system. I hope the Government will take the new clause in the positive sprit in which we tabled it.

I 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.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause relates to volunteering and giving leave to volunteers. It would require a consultation, so I hope that the Government will grasp it with both hands.

It feels like their modus operandi on the Bill is for a vast majority of it to go out to further consultation, so what harm would there be in another small consultation on volunteering?

I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that we are looking at employers that employ over 250 individuals, so the new clause would far from impact smaller businesses.

I have grave concerns that the Government believe they have all the time in the world and expect that there will be a second glorious term for the Labour party, come hell or high water. The jury is out on whether a second term for Keir will appear.

One is better driving the agenda forward while one has the helm than to hope for the helm when it turns the next headland. I encourage the Government to reflect on their proposals and grasp the opportunity to consult on this volunteering opportunity.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would require the Certification Officer to publish a report on the impact on various sectors of the economy of introducing a four-day week.

The Certification Officer is responsible for ensuring that trade unions carry out their statutory duties, and it is important that it is aware of the impacts of this policy, which various elements of the labour movement and the trade union movement have supported.

We have seen just how effective the four-day week has been where it has been tried. Let us take the example of South Cambridgeshire district council, which introduced it for its workers in 2023. The Mail reported last week that one in six staff have a second job during their day off.

That is despite the council’s website stating that the time off is to allow workers to “recover and re-energise” for the “more intense” four-day week. It is full-time pay for part-time work, and then some.

It would be extremely helpful for all concerned if we had a little more transparent information about the effects the four-day week might have on the economy as a whole if introduced more widely.

That is why we have tabled new clause 42, which would require the Certification Officer, within 12 months of Royal Assent, to lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the economic and financial impact of introducing a four-day week.

The report would be required to cover the retail and wholesale industry; the manufacturing industry; the finance and insurance industry; the health and social care industry; the construction industry; the education industry; the public sector and defence industry; the transport and storage industry; the arts and recreation industry; and agriculture, mining and fishing.

To ensure that the report is balanced, the Certification Officer must consult business owners, workers and consumers, although that, of course, is not an exhaustive list.

For full transparency, we would like to make sure that any submissions that are received are published, preferably in a way that can be questioned in this House. The new clause aims to introduce a “look before you leap” ethos into the Government’s policymaking.

Given the state of the Bill, I would argue that that is very much needed.

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.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would extend statutory adoption pay to those who are self-employed or contractors.

I must declare something of an interest, although I do not formally need to, because I am adopted myself, and this issue is extremely close to my heart. When I was leader of the Torbay unitary council, we went from “failing” to “good” for our children’s services within two years.

That is probably the biggest achievement of my life. Again, it was something I was driven on because I am adopted. In the ’70s, I was very fortunate to be adopted by Eric and Penny.

Eric was not a toolmaker, but he was a lorry driver, and would potentially have benefited had there been an opportunity such as the one I have outlined in the new clause.

I encourage colleagues to step back slightly and to reflect on the challenges in social care, and particularly children’s social care, and on the heavy costs—I am sure colleagues are only too aware of them—to local authorities, which have a responsibility for children’s services.

For those kids who need support, the best people are foster carers or those who adopt. When there is a lack of such people—when there is not that capacity—kids might have to be picked up by the private sector, and hard-pressed local authorities often have to pay through the nose for that.

The new clause is about changing the weather again around support for youngsters in need. By extending statutory adoption pay to those who are self-employed or contractors, we would enhance the pool of those who can participate. I thank my hon.

Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for her help with the new clause. Earlier this week, she led a worthwhile debate on this issue, and I acknowledge the positive feedback the Minister in that debate gave on the proposals.

I look forward to hearing from this Minister how the Government could take the proposals in this probing amendment forward.

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

I thank the hon. Member for Torbay for tabling new clause 46. I start by expressing my appreciation for all adoptive parents, who offer loving and stable homes to children who are unable to live with their birth parents.

This Government are committed to ensuring that all working parents receive the best possible support to balance their work and family lives. New clause 46 calls for eligibility for statutory adoption pay to be extended to individuals who are self-employed or contractors.

It would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations within six months of the passage of the Bill to enable self-employed individuals and contractors who adopt to receive statutory adoption pay.

The proposed regulations would also define the terms “self-employed” and “contractors” to ensure that we have a shared understanding of who would qualify for statutory adoption pay under this extended eligibility.

At present, parental leave and pay entitlements are generally not available to the self-employed. That is because the parental leave system is focused on supporting employed parents, who need specific rights and protections to take time off work.

Self-employed people are generally considered to have more flexibility and autonomy, and not to need those same protections.

There is, of course, the exception of maternity allowance, which is available to self-employed mothers to ensure that they can take time off work following childbirth to recover and establish breastfeeding, if they wish to do so. That is an important health and safety provision.

None the less, the Government are committed to supporting parents to balance their work and family responsibilities and keen to hear how the system can be improved.

While adoptive parents who are self-employed or contractors do not qualify for statutory adoption pay, statutory adoption guidance advises local authorities to consider making a payment similar to maternity allowance for those parents.

In November 2024, the Government published “Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive,” which sets out our vision for children’s social care. As part of that vision, the Government have allocated £49 million to the adoption and special guardianship support fund for this financial year.

The fund enables local authorities and regional adoption agencies to offer a wide range of tailored support, including psychotherapy, family therapy and creative therapies to children who are adopted and their families.

These services are available to all adoptive families following a locally conducted assessment of the family’s needs.

Depending on individual circumstances, additional financial support—for example, universal credit and child benefit—may also be available to contractors or self-employed people who adopt.

We have committed to a review of the parental leave system to ensure that it best supports all working families. The review will be conducted separately to the Employment Rights Bill, and work is already under way on planning its delivery. On that basis, I invite the hon.

Member for Torbay to withdraw his proposed new clause.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration of interests and my membership of the trade unions Community and Unison. I will note a couple of useful points in response to the important arguments of the hon.

Member for Dundee Central about migrant workers and the conditionality of visas. I have worked on migration issues for a long time, so I sympathise with the objectives and the direction that he puts forward. The new clause essentially proposes an investigation or information-gathering exercise.

The new Government have commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee, which is a body of experts that is independent of the Government or the Home Office, to look into issues around the conditionality of visas and the different types of worker visa to which he referred.

The MAC is doing a lot of important work, and I think it is the appropriate location for that research. I am a member of the Home Affairs Committee, which is also looking into some of the changes that are happening. I reassure the hon.

Member that a lot of the work and thinking on this issue is already getting under way. The hon. Member raised some substantive points.

First, on seasonal or temporary workers who find themselves at risk of exploitation, he referred to the distinction between those whose immigration status is permanent or secure and those whose status is conditional on their employer.

I think the point he is driving at with that distinction goes to the heart of the immigration system overall.

We have a system in which conditionalities are applied to visa status, whether that is for someone who has come to do a job, for someone who has applied to do a university course or for someone who is in a relationship.

He is driving at a philosophical problem in the immigration system, rather than a technical one. Where employers abuse the system, there are two points to address. First, it is a breach of immigration law and not necessarily of employment law. The hon.

Member drew attention to the fact that they lose their sponsorship capacity. When that situation occurs, it is appropriate that we look at it through Home Office immigration regulations. That can be much more effective than trying to crowbar quite a specific point into the UK-wide labour market.

That is a very helpful intervention, because it draws me on to my final point. There is a distinction between what rights there are and what rights are enforced.

We have seen from the discussion around the fair work agency and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority that the issue is that rights are not enforced. The good part of this Bill is that it sets up a fair work agency that will look at enforcement.

Not supporting the new clause does not mean not recognising the objective that it puts forward.

The argument is that this point should and could be dealt with more effectively through other legislative avenues, such as the modern slavery legislation brought in by the previous Government, which they then completely gutted.

Looking at how the labour exploitation components of that legislation could be strengthened would deal more effectively with the issues that the hon. Member is raising via his new clause.

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition cannot support new clause 51. The horrible practices outlined by the hon. Member for Dundee Central need to be tackled, but the Bill will already do that. I actually find myself in agreement with parts of what the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh said.

There are other routes within immigration law where such things can and should be tackled.

No matter how much we disagree with parts of the Bill, if we take the view that the law must apply equally to everybody whether or not they are a British citizen, it is unnecessarily to carve out a particular section of people through new clause 51, when there is other legislation to deal with the abuses that no one on the Committee or in the House wants to see.

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

I will be brief. The clauses are simple and standard, and they appear in most legislation. Clause 113 will allow the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments—that is, amendments that are immediately consequent upon a provision in the Bill—to primary or secondary legislation.

Consequential amendments are necessary changes to other legislation to ensure that the law works alongside the changes to the law made in the Bill.

Subsection (2) will allow the power to be used to amend primary legislation where we would not expect to be burdened with further primary legislation to make changes.

Subsection (4) sets out that regulations that amend primary legislation will be subject to the affirmative procedure, thus maintaining Parliament’s ability to scrutinise the provisions made under the power. Clause 114 will allow the Secretary of State to make two types of provision.

The first type is a transitional provision, which can be used specifically to assist the changeover from the state of the law before the Bill comes into force to the state of the law when it is fully in force.

The second type is a saving provision, which can be used to preserve certain elements of the old law even after the new law comes into effect.

They are used to maintain specific rights, obligations or legal effects that existed under the old law so that the changes will not apply in certain pre-existing cases. We have ensured that the powers conferred on the Secretary of State to make provisions under clauses 113 and 114 are limited.

As I say, the clauses are customary provisions. I commend them to the Committee.

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

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

” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term when making any regulations under the Act.

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

” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult and publish a report of that consultation before making any regulations under the Act.

I think this will be the last set of amendments we discuss, so let us ensure that they are good ones.

Amendment 164 would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term when making any regulations under the Bill.

Amendment 165 would require the Secretary of State to undertake consultations on all regulations published under the Bill. The effects of the Chancellor’s Budget of broken promises are apparent for all to see. On 7 January, the yield on a 30-year gilt broke a 27-year record, at 5.198%.

That is the highest figure since the Debt Management Office was created in 1998. On Monday, the yield rose to 5.461%.

That is not abstract; it reflects dwindling confidence in the UK economy, puts extra pressure on the Government’s headroom against their own fiscal rules and could lead to taxpayers paying billions more just to service the Government’s debts.

The Chancellor has chosen to increase borrowing by an average of £32 billion a year for the next five years. That is the largest fiscal loosening in any fiscal event in recent years. It will add substantial pressure to those debt repayments.

Earlier this week, The i Paper reported that average two-year and five-year fixed deals for those with 25% equity or deposit are now expected to rise above 5% in the coming weeks, causing more financial pain for buyers and those trying to remortgage.

The Budget, the rise in employer national insurance contributions and, importantly, the provisions in the Bill could not be described as pro-growth, yet the Government repeatedly assure us that growth is the one thing they will deliver, which will unlock everything else.

Amendment 164 would restore the Government’s good intentions and get them back on track. It would ensure that the Secretary of State has regard to the need to ensure growth when making regulations under the Bill.

On the basis of all the evidence that we have seen since the general election, growth is clearly not front and centre in the Government’s thinking when they are making policy. It must be.

Amendment 165 would ensure that the Secretary of State consults properly before making regulations under the extensive powers in the Bill.

It is merely to hold the Government to their word: they acknowledge that in many respects the policy in the Bill is undercooked and needs further work before implementation.

With these final amendments that the Committee will discuss, let us lay down the gauntlet and see whether the Government will put their money where their mouth is. If the Government are serious about growth, they will surely accept amendment 164.

Throughout our debates, Conservative colleagues have been critical of the Government for not having an oven-ready Bill and emphasising the need for further consultation. I have sympathy with that, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham.

However, the last Conservative amendment that we will consider in Committee would require consultation, so I wonder whether the Labour party’s proposals have worn the Conservatives down into believing in it. I am delighted by that; perhaps they have changed their minds on the rest of the Bill, too.

I hope that the Minister will grasp the opportunity with both hands.

Well, there we have it. The Government who say they are pro-growth have shown their true colours and will not back our amendment to prove their intentions towards growth. This whole Bill is a socialist charter and we know that we cannot have socialism and growth at the same time.

The history books have taught us that time and again. We deeply regret the Government’s resistance to these two amendments.

We will continue to be the party that champions business, growth and getting our economy going again, while this Government do everything they can, in this Bill and in their Budget and in so many other ways, to hold our economy back.

Will the shadow Minister give way?

Of course I will. Bring it on.

I am going to try an entirely new tactic to derail the shadow Minister mid-stride. This is a genuine question, and I hope he answers it.

Does he agree that throughout our line-by-line discussion of the Bill, he has been most generous with his time in accepting interventions that I believe to have been valuable?

I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is for others to judge whether any Member of this House has been generous or otherwise.

What I can say, as we come towards the end of our debate on the final amendments and move on to the final clauses, is that we have had a good debate in this Bill Committee.

It has not been one of those where those on the Government Benches are told to be quiet in the interest of getting on with it. We have had a genuine debate and a back and forth.

Although we have not always agreed, and it looks like we do not agree on the amendments we are debating right now, we have had a debate.

Our constituents sent us all here to represent them in arguments over ideas, concepts and values, and practical steps to meet the ideas and values that we hold dear, and we have done so. I agree with the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

On amendments 164 and 165, I repeat that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition regret that the Government do not wish to accept these pro-growth amendments. I will not press them for now, but we may well be seeing them very soon, when the Bill returns to the main Chamber on Report.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

I hope the Committee will agree that, like other clauses we have debated in part 6, clause 115 is a straightforward and customary provision.

It sets out various procedural aspects that are relevant to the making of regulations under the Bill by statutory instrument, with the exception of commencement regulations, which I will speak to separately as they are dealt with in clause 118.

Subsection (2) sets out that regulations made under the Bill may make different provision for different purposes, and that they may contain supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provisions.

Subsections (4) and (5) explain what is meant by references in the Bill to the negative procedure and the affirmative procedure. The delegated powers memorandum sets out each power in the Bill, as introduced, and justifies the procedure set out in the relevant clause.

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

Clause 116 Financial provision Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

Clause 116 simply sets out that expenditure incurred under the terms of the Bill is to be met by supplies from Parliament. Clause 117 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill as introduced.

With the exception of clause 25, parts 1, 2 and 4 extend to England, Wales and Scotland; part 3 extends to England and Wales only; and clause 25 and parts 5 and 6 extend to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

It is also worth noting that amendments or repeals made by the Bill have the same extent as the provision amended or repealed. Clause 118 sets out the manner in which provisions of the Bill will be commenced.

Subsections (1) and (2) set out which provisions come into force on Royal Assent and two months after Royal Assent respectively. In respect of all other provisions, subsection (3) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the days that such provisions come into force.

Finally, clause 119 provides that the short title of the legislation will be the Employment Rights Act.

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.

I echo the thanks that the Minister gave, particularly to the Clerks of the Committee, the wider Scrutiny Unit and everyone else who has worked so hard.

These Bills are an enormous amount of hard work for the staff of the House, particularly the Clerks, and it is always appreciated by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition.

Likewise, from the Doorkeepers and Hansard to everyone who prepares the room for us, it is an enormous job of work, and we thank them most sincerely. The Bill will shortly move on to Report, when the battle will recommence.

In the meantime, Sir Christopher, I thank you and the other Chairs of the Committee for your chairmanship. We look forward to the next round.

I echo the thanks to you, Sir Christopher, and the other Chairs who have ably chaired the Committee. I thank the Clerks, Doorkeepers and Hansard, who have reported throughout. I thank colleagues for the good-natured way that the Bill has been debated.

This is my first Bill Committee, and I look forward with gusto to my next one. I also thank Laura Green, who has ably supported me throughout the Committee.

It would be easy for me to express exactly what the hon. Member for Torbay has just said in thanking everybody who has been involved.

My only concern as we go to the next stage is that of all the amendments we have discussed and all the measures that have been proposed, not a single one has been adopted. There is an issue with that in general, because the Government have such a large majority.

I guess that is not a bad thing for Labour Members, but it has meant that we have lacked the ability to really pull things apart. I hope that will come at the next stage.

That is my only disappointment, but I wanted to put it on the record, because I know that it is a concern shared by other Members on both sides of the House.

I hope that the Minister is listening so that we can get far more robust and real opportunities to amend and improve the Bill, which we all wish to see.

May I thank everybody for their kind remarks? I know I speak for all other Chairs when I say that it has been a very good-natured Committee.

Almost everybody has been in a new role: for some people it was their first Standing Committee, for others it was their first leading for the Opposition, and for some it was their first real Committee as a Minister.

Everybody has performed pretty well—you should all be able to thank yourselves for that.

I also thank the Clerks—behind every amendment is a heck of a lot of work by them—the Hansard reporters, who have done their job assiduously, and the Badge Messengers and Doorkeepers and everybody else involved, not forgetting the electricians who managed to ensure that we kept the lights going.

Question put and agreed to. Bill, as amended, to be reported.